title: Predicting the potential demographic impact of predators on their prey: a comparative analysis of two carnivore-ungulate systems in Scandinavia.
abstract: 1. Understanding the role of predation in shaping the dynamics of animal communities is a fundamental issue in ecological research. Nevertheless, the complex nature of predator-prey interactions often prevents researchers from modelling them explicitly. 2. By using periodic Leslie-Usher matrices and a simulation approach together with parameters obtained from long-term field projects, we reconstructed the underlying mechanisms of predator-prey demographic interactions and compared the dynamics of the roe deer-red fox-Eurasian lynx-human harvest system with those of the moose-brown bear-gray wolf-human harvest system in the boreal forest ecosystem of the southern Scandinavian Peninsula. 3. The functional relationship of both roe deer and moose λ to changes in predation rates from the four predators was remarkably different. Lynx had the strongest impact among the four predators, whereas predation rates by wolves, red foxes, or brown bears generated minor variations in prey population λ. Elasticity values of lynx, wolf, fox and bear predation rates were -0·157, -0·056, -0·031 and -0·006, respectively, but varied with both predator and prey densities. 4. Differences in predation impact were only partially related to differences in kill or predation rates, but were rather a result of different distribution of predation events among prey age classes. Therefore, the age composition of killed individuals emerged as the main underlying factor determining the overall per capita impact of predation. 5. Our results confirm the complex nature of predator-prey interactions in large terrestrial mammals, by showing that different carnivores preying on the same prey species can exert a dramatically different demographic impact, even in the same ecological context, as a direct consequence of their predation patterns. Similar applications of this analytical framework in other geographical and ecological contexts are needed, but a more general evaluation of the subject is also required, aimed to assess, on a broader systematic and ecological range, what specific traits of a carnivore are most related to its potential impact on prey species.
authors.affiliation: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, PO Box 5685, Sluppen, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway. vincenzo.gervasi@nina.no
authors.forename: Vincenzo
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Gervasi
authors.forename: Erlend B
authors.initials: EB
authors.lastname: Nilsen
authors.forename: Håkan
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Sand
authors.forename: Manuela
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Panzacchi
authors.forename: Geir R
authors.initials: GR
authors.lastname: Rauset
authors.forename: Hans C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Pedersen
authors.forename: Jonas
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kindberg
authors.forename: Petter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Wabakken
authors.forename: Barbara
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Zimmermann
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Odden
authors.forename: Olof
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Liberg
authors.forename: Jon E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Swenson
authors.forename: John D C
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Linnell
mesh_terms: D017677:Age Distribution; D000818:Animals; D002335:Carnivora / Q000502:physiology*; D003670:Deer; D017753:Ecosystem; D005260:Female; D020387:Food Chain; D008297:Male; D008954:Models, Biological; D009664:Norway; D011157:Population Dynamics; D011235:Predatory Behavior; D012621:Seasons; D013045:Species Specificity; D013548:Sweden
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Sep 18;425(6955):288-90
references.pmid: 13679915
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2007 Nov;76(6):1037-44
references.pmid: 17922700
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 22;273(1593):1537-43
references.pmid: 16777749
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2009 Jul;78(4):741-51
references.pmid: 19486380
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Aug;15(8):337-341
references.pmid: 10884706
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2009 May;78(3):585-94
references.pmid: 19379139
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Sep;87(9):2338-48
references.pmid: 16995634
references.citation: Ecology. 2006 Oct;87(10):2411-7
references.pmid: 17089649
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2010 May;45(5):1142-54
references.pmid: 20213233
references.citation: Am Nat. 2005 Jul;166(1):119-23; discussion 124-8
references.pmid: 15937795
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 7;273(1592):1421-7
references.pmid: 16777732
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2011 Jan;80(1):244-58
references.pmid: 21054381
references.citation: Oecologia. 2008 May;156(1):53-64
references.pmid: 18270746
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2007 Sep;76(5):899-907
references.pmid: 17714268
references.citation: Oecologia. 1985 Mar;65(4):503-512
references.pmid: 28311857
references.citation: J Anim Ecol. 2008 Jan;77(1):173-83
references.pmid: 18177336