Indirect risk effects reduce feeding efficiency of ducks during spring

Ecol Evol. 2017 Dec 12;8(2):961-972. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3714. eCollection 2018 Jan.

Abstract

Indirect risk effects of predators on prey behavior can have more of an impact on prey populations than direct consumptive effects. Predation risk can elicit more vigilance behavior in prey, reducing the amount of time available for other activities, such as foraging, which could potentially reduce foraging efficiency. Understanding the conditions associated with predation risk and the specific effects predation risk have on prey behavior is important because it has direct influences on the profitability of food items found under various conditions and states of the forager. The goals of this study were to assess how ducks perceived predation risk in various habitat types and how strongly perceived risk versus energetic demand affected foraging behavior. We manipulated food abundance in different wetland types in Illinois, USA to reduce confounding between food abundance and vegetation structure. We conducted focal-animal behavioral samples on five duck species in treatment and control plots and used generalized linear mixed-effects models to compare the effects of vegetation structure versus other factors on the intensity with which ducks fed and the duration of feeding stints. Mallards fed more intensively and, along with blue-winged teal, used longer feeding stints in open habitats, consistent with the hypothesis that limited visibility was perceived to have a greater predation risk than unlimited visibility. The species temporally nearest to nesting, wood ducks, were willing to take more risks for a greater food reward, consistent with an increase in a marginal value of energy as they approached nesting. Our results indicate that some duck species value energy differently based on the surrounding vegetation structure and density. Furthermore, increases in the marginal value of energy can be more influential than perceived risk in shaping foraging behavior patterns. Based on these findings, we conclude that the value of various food items is not solely determined by energy contained in the item but by conditions in which it is found and the state of the forager.

Keywords: foraging; nonlethal effects; perceived predation risk; risk‐taking; waterfowl.