Predatory cue use in flush responses of a colonial nesting seabird during polar bear foraging
Animal Behaviour, ISSN: 0003-3472, Vol: 193, Page: 75-90
2022
- 5Citations
- 2Usage
- 14Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef3
- Usage2
- Abstract Views2
- Captures14
- Readers14
- 14
Article Description
Nest predation is a primary cause of reproductive failure in birds; thus, predators apply strong selective pressure on nesting behaviour, especially risk assessment behaviours during predator encounters at nests. Prey's risk assessments are not static; rather, dynamic risk assessment theory predicts that prey assess risk in real-time and update it according to changes in cues posed by the predator(s). We used drone videography to film nest-flushing behaviours of common eiders, Somateria mollissima, in response to foraging polar bears, Ursus maritimus, on East Bay Island (Nunavut, Canada). We assessed how cue use influenced flushing behaviour and nest fate in a path analysis using 200 observations of 193 eiders in 2017. Our most supported model found that more direct angles of visual gaze and travel angle by polar bears resulted in conspicuous nest flushes by eiders (β = −0.236 ± 0.059), whereas the presence of herring gulls, Larus argentatus, resulted in more discrete flushes of hens walking from their nests (β = −0.181 ± 0.059). Shorter flush initiation distances between eiders and approaching bears resulted in greater nest predation by polar bears (β = −0.203 ± 0.076). We found no support that an eider's visibility from the nest influenced any component of flushing behaviour. We suggest that during encounters with bears, eiders are capable of assessing risk and making appropriate behavioural decisions to reduce the chances of nest loss. However, as the colony experienced heavy predation by bears in 2017, behavioural responses alone appear to be insufficient to mitigate polar bear predation at the population level.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347222002329; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.08.009; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85139018213&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003347222002329; https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/glierpub/646; https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=glierpub; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.08.009
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know