Author
Listed:
- Matthew A Wuensch
- Tony W Mong
- Brandon M Scurlock
- Nathan W Byer
- Jonathon D Cepek
- David Ward
Abstract
When navigating landscapes, prey make decisions that balance their need to acquire high-quality resources with the risk of predation. When risk is heterogeneous across the landscape, prey can alter their habitat use to avoid high-risk patches, or they can employ behavioral modifications, such as shifting their temporal activity, that allow them to continue to use high-risk patches while offsetting risk. Our objective was to discern how white-tailed deer in a predator-rich environment (the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem [GYE]) and an environment containing only mesopredators (Ohio, USA) respond to predator urine cues and predator activity. We used camera traps to quantify the spatiotemporal activity of deer before, during, and after applying predator-scent cues (control/water, wolf urine, mountain lion urine, and coyote urine). In the GYE, deer decreased diurnal activity in response to all predator-scent cues, and increased nocturnal activity in response to wolf, mountain lion, and control scents. Deer also spatially avoided the physical presence of grizzly bears and temporally aligned their activity patterns with bears as bear detections increased over time. In Ohio, deer did not alter their spatial or temporal activity in response to predator-scent cues, and we found that deer activity was positively associated with coyote activity, thereby suggesting that deer may be naïve to the predator-scent cues in this region. Our study shows that scent cues alone do not alter the spatial activity of deer, but in regions where deer are not naïve to the risk of predation, they may exhibit changes in their temporal activity.
Suggested Citation
Matthew A Wuensch & Tony W Mong & Brandon M Scurlock & Nathan W Byer & Jonathon D Cepek & David Ward, 2025.
"Predator activity and scent cues influence white-tailed deer behavior in a multi-predator landscape,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 36(5), pages 1-091..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:36:y:2025:i:5:p:araf091.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:36:y:2025:i:5:p:araf091.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.