4.6 Article

Do Lions Panthera leo Actively Select Prey or Do Prey Preferences Simply Reflect Chance Responses via Evolutionary Adaptations to Optimal Foraging?

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023607

关键词

-

资金

  1. Budget Rent-a-Car
  2. Eveready Batteries
  3. CR Kennedy Pty Ltd
  4. Leica
  5. Continental Tyres
  6. Wayne Linklater
  7. Centre for African Conservation Ecology at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
  8. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
  9. National Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research on coursing predators has revealed that actions throughout the predatory behavioral sequence (using encounter rate, hunting rate, and kill rate as proxy measures of decisions) drive observed prey preferences. We tested whether similar actions drive the observed prey preferences of a stalking predator, the African lion Panthera leo. We conducted two 96 hour, continuous follows of lions in Addo Elephant National Park seasonally from December 2003 until November 2005 (16 follows), and compared prey encounter rate with prey abundance, hunt rate with prey encounter rate, and kill rate with prey hunt rate for the major prey species in Addo using Jacobs' electivity index. We found that lions encountered preferred prey species far more frequently than expected based on their abundance, and they hunted these species more frequently than expected based on this higher encounter rate. Lions responded variably to non-preferred and avoided prey species throughout the predatory sequence, although they hunted avoided prey far less frequently than expected based on the number of encounters of them. We conclude that actions of lions throughout the predatory behavioural sequence, but particularly early on, drive the prey preferences that have been documented for this species. Once a hunt is initiated, evolutionary adaptations to the predator-prey interactions drive hunting success.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据