Article | Published:

Risky times and risky places interact to affect prey behaviour

Nature Ecology & Evolutionvolume 1pages11231128 (2017) | Download Citation


Both short-term and long-term variation in predation risk can affect the behaviour of prey, thus affecting growth, reproduction, survival and population dynamics. Inferences about the strength of such ‘risk effects’ in the wild have been limited by a lack of studies that relate antipredator responses to the magnitude of direct predation, measure responses of prey to risk from complete predator guilds, and quantify risk in more than one way. Here, we quantify behavioural responses of a complete ungulate prey guild to long-term and short-term variation in risks from all of the large predators in Liuwa Plain National Park, with known patterns of direct predation. Our analysis allows the first direct test for interaction between responses to long-term and short-term risk in the wild, and reveals that prey vigilance responds strongly to locations with high long-term risk when short-term risk is high, but not when short-term risk is low. This result has broad ramifications for the design and interpretation of field studies of antipredator behaviour, its costs and its consequences for population dynamics.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Peckarsky, B. L. et al. Sublethal consequences of stream-dwelling predatory stoneflies on mayfly growth and fecundity. Ecology 74, 1836–1846 (1993).

  2. 2.

    Boonstra, R., Hik, D., Singleton, G. R. & Tinnikov, A. The impact of predator-induced stress on the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecol. Monogr. 68, 371–394 (1998).

  3. 3.

    Sheriff, M. J., Krebs, C. J. & Boonstra, R. The sensitive hare: sublethal effects of predator stress on reproduction in snowshoe hares. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 1249–1258 (2009).

  4. 4.

    LaManna, J. A. & Martin, T. E. Costs of fear: behavioural and life-history responses to risk and their demographic consequences vary across species. Ecol. Lett. 19, 403–413 (2016).

  5. 5.

    Werner, E. E., Gilliam, J. F., Hall, D. J. & Mittelbach, G. G. An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64, 1540–1548 (1983).

  6. 6.

    Pangle, K. L., Peacor, S. D. & Johansson, O. E. Large nonlethal effects of an invasive invertebrate predator on zooplankton population growth rate. Ecology 88, 402–412 (2007).

  7. 7.

    Creel, S. & Christianson, D. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 194–201 (2008).

  8. 8.

    Christianson, D. & Creel, S. Ecosystem scale declines in elk recruitment and population growth with wolf colonization: a before-after-control-impact approach. PLoS One 9, e102330 (2014).

  9. 9.

    Cresswell, W. & Quinn, J. L. Attack frequency, attack success and choice of prey group size for two predators with contrasting hunting strategies. Anim. Behav. 80, 643–648 (2010).

  10. 10.

    Cresswell, W. & Quinn, J. L. Contrasting risks from different predators change the overall nonlethal effects of predation risk. Behav. Ecol. 24, 871–876 (2013).

  11. 11.

    Dröge, E. D., Creel, S., Becker, M. S. & M’Soka, J. L. J. Spatial and temporal avoidance of risk within a large carnivore guild. Ecol. Evol. 7, 189–199 (2017).

  12. 12.

    Creel, S., Christianson, D., Liley, S. & Winnie, J. A. Predation risk affects reproductive physiology and demography of elk. Science 315, 960 (2007).

  13. 13.

    Valeix, M. et al. Behavioral adjustments of African herbivores to predation risk by lions: spatiotemporal variations influence habitat use. Ecology 90, 23–30 (2009).

  14. 14.

    Relyea, R. A. Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82, 523–540 (2001).

  15. 15.

    Thaker, M. et al. Minimizing predation risk in a landscape of multiple predators: effects on the spatial distribution of African ungulates. Ecology 92, 398–407 (2011).

  16. 16.

    Creel, S., Schuette, P. & Christianson, D. Effects of predation risk on group size, vigilance, and foraging behavior in an African ungulate community. Behav. Ecol. 25, 773–784 (2014).

  17. 17.

    Relyea, R. A. The relationship between predation risk and antipredator responses in larval anurans. Ecology 82, 541–554 (2001).

  18. 18.

    Lank, D. B. & Ydenberg, R. C. Death and danger at migratory stopovers: problems with ‘predation risk’. J. Avian Biol. 34, 225–228 (2003).

  19. 19.

    Lind, J. & Cresswell, W. Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Behav. Ecol. 16, 945–956 (2005).

  20. 20.

    Moll, R. J., Killion, A. K., Montgomery, R. A., Tambling, C. J. & Hayward, M. W. Spatial patterns of African ungulate aggregation reveal complex but limited risk effects from reintroduced carnivores. Ecology 97, 1123–1134 (2016).

  21. 21.

    Cherry, M. J., Morgan, K. E., Rutledge, B. T., Conner, L. M. & Warren, R. J. Can coyote predation risk induce reproduction suppression in white-tailed deer? Ecosphere 7, e01481 (2016).

  22. 22.

    Winnie, J. A. Jr & Creel, S. Sex-specific behavioural responses of elk to spatial and temporal variation in the threat of wolf predation. Anim. Behav. 73, 215–225 (2007).

  23. 23.

    Basille, M. et al. Plastic response of fearful prey to the spatiotemporal dynamics of predator distribution. Ecology 96, 2622–2631 (2015).

  24. 24.

    Creel, S., Winnie, J. A., Christianson, D. & Liley, S. Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk. Anim. Behav. 76, 1139–1146 (2008).

  25. 25.

    Ripple, W. J., Larsen, E. J., Renkin, R. A. & Smith, D. W. Trophic cascades among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park’s northern range. Biol. Conserv. 102, 227–234 (2001).

  26. 26.

    Ripple, W. J. & Beschta, R. L. Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park. Forest Ecol. Manag. 184, 299–313 (2003).

  27. 27.

    Lima, S. L. & Bednekoff, P. A. Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am. Nat. 153, 649–659 (1999).

  28. 28.

    Brown, G. E., Ferrari, M. C. O., Elvidge, C. K., Ramnarine, I. & Chivers, D. P. Phenotypically plastic neophobia: a response to variable predation risk. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20122712 (2013).

  29. 29.

    Joyce, B. J., Demers, E. E., Ferrari, M. C. O., Chivers, D. P. & Brown, G. E. Background predation risk and learned predator recognition in convict cichlids: does risk allocation constrain learning? Ethology 122, 841–849 (2016).

  30. 30.

    Hopcraft, J. G. C., Sinclair, A. R. E. & Packer, C. Planning for success: serengeti lions seek prey accessibility rather than abundance. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 559–566 (2005).

  31. 31.

    Preisser, E. L., Orrock, J. L. & Schmitz, O. J. Predator hunting mode and habitat domain alter nonconsumptive effects in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 88, 2744–2751 (2007).

  32. 32.

    Kauffman, M. J. et al. Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. Ecol. Lett. 10, 690–700 (2007).

  33. 33.

    Crowl, T. A. & Covich, A. P. Predator-induced life-history shifts in a freshwater snail. Science 247, 949–951 (1990).

  34. 34.

    Heithaus, M. R., Wirsing, A. J., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. & Dill, L. M. Towards a predictive framework for predator risk effects: the interaction of landscape features and prey escape tactics. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 556–562 (2009).

  35. 35.

    Brook, L. A., Johnson, C. N. & Ritchie, E. G. Effects of predator control on behaviour of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1278–1286 (2012).

  36. 36.

    M’Soka, J. L. J., Creel, S., Becker, M. S. & Murdoch, J. D. Ecological and anthropogenic effects on the density of migratory and resident ungulates in a human-inhabited protected area. Afr. J. Ecol. (in the press).

  37. 37.

    M’Soka, J. L. J., Creel, S., Becker, M. S. & Droge, E. D. Spotted hyaena survival and density in a lion depleted ecosystem: the effects of prey availability, humans and competition between large carnivores in African savannahs. Biol. Conserv. 201, 348–355 (2016).

  38. 38.

    Worton, B. J. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70, 164–168 (1989).

  39. 39.

    Seaman, E. D. & Powell, R. A. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77, 2075–2085 (1996).

  40. 40.

    Calenge, C. The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197, 516–519 (2006).

  41. 41.

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016).

  42. 42.

    Silverman, B. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis (CRC, 1986).

  43. 43.

    Wand, M. P. & Jones, M. C. Kernel Smoothing (CRC, 1994).

  44. 44.

    Schmitz, O. J. Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. Science 319, 952–954 (2008).

  45. 45.

    Périquet, S. et al. Influence of immediate predation risk by lions on the vigilance of prey of different body size. Behav. Ecol. 23, 970–976 (2012).

  46. 46.

    Blanchard, P. & Fritz, H. Induced or routine vigilance while foraging. Oikos 116, 1603–1608 (2016).

  47. 47.

    Creel, S. et al. The relationship between direct predation and antipredator responses: a test with multiple predators and multiple prey. Ecology (2017).

Download references


We thank the Barotse Royal Establishment, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife in Zambia and African Parks for their permission and collaboration to conduct the fieldwork for this study. Funding was provided by WWF-Netherlands, African Parks Network, National Science Foundation Animal Behaviour Program (IOS-1145749), and Painted Dog Conservation Inc. Egil Dröge was supported by a Dissertation Completion Award from the Graduate School at Montana State University. Furthermore, we thank A. Chinga, F. Corry, G. Ellis, D. Hafey, V. Hoffman, T. Mukula, D. Mutanga, D. Smit and J. Tembo for fieldwork assistance.

Author information


  1. Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA

    • Egil Dröge
    • , Scott Creel
    •  & Matthew S. Becker
  2. Zambian Carnivore Programme, PO Box 80, Mfuwe, Eastern Province, Zambia

    • Egil Dröge
    • , Scott Creel
    •  & Matthew S. Becker
  3. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, OX13 5QL, UK

    • Egil Dröge
  4. Department of National Parks & Wildlife, Private Bag 1, Kafue Road, Chilanga, Zambia

    • Jassiel M’soka


  1. Search for Egil Dröge in:

  2. Search for Scott Creel in:

  3. Search for Matthew S. Becker in:

  4. Search for Jassiel M’soka in:


S.C. developed the methods of data collection. S.C., M.S.B., E.D. and J.M. designed the study in Liuwa Plain National Park. E.D., J.M. and M.S.B. collected the data. E.D., with the assistance of S.C., performed the data analysis and wrote the manuscript. The other authors provided input on all earlier versions of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Egil Dröge.

About this article

Publication history





Further reading