A global assessment of large terrestrial carnivore kill rates

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY Biological Reviews Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1111/brv.13143
Luke D. Emerson, Heiko U. Wittmer, L. Mark Elbroch, Kristal Kostoglou, Kimberley J. Bannister, Jared J. Psaila, Desley Whisson, Euan G. Ritchie
{"title":"A global assessment of large terrestrial carnivore kill rates","authors":"Luke D. Emerson, Heiko U. Wittmer, L. Mark Elbroch, Kristal Kostoglou, Kimberley J. Bannister, Jared J. Psaila, Desley Whisson, Euan G. Ritchie","doi":"10.1111/brv.13143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Through killing and instilling fear in their prey, large terrestrial carnivores shape the structure and function of ecosystems globally. Most large carnivore species have experienced severe range and population declines due to human activities, and many are now threatened with extinction. Consequently, the impacts of these predators on food webs have been diminished or lost completely from many ecosystems. Kill rates provide a fundamental metric for understanding large carnivore ecology and assessing and comparing predation within and across ecological communities. Our systematic review of large terrestrial mammalian carnivore kill rates reveals significant positive geographic (North America, Europe, and Africa) and taxonomic (grey wolf <jats:italic>Canis lupus</jats:italic>, puma <jats:italic>Puma concolor</jats:italic>, lion <jats:italic>Panthera leo</jats:italic>, and Eurasian lynx <jats:italic>Lynx lynx</jats:italic>) bias, with most studies apparently motivated by human–carnivore conflict over access to ungulate prey and wildlife management objectives. Our current understanding of the behaviour and functional roles of many large carnivore species and populations thus remains limited. By synthesising and comparing kill rates, we show that solitary carnivores (e.g. brown bears <jats:italic>Ursus arctos</jats:italic> and most felids) exhibit higher <jats:italic>per capita</jats:italic> kill rates than social carnivores. However, ungulate predation by bears is typically limited to predation of neonates during a short period. Lower <jats:italic>per capita</jats:italic> kill rates by social carnivores suggests group living significantly reduces energetic demands, or, alternatively, that group‐living carnivores defend and consume a greater proportion of large prey carcasses, or may acquire more food through other means (e.g. scavenging, kleptoparasitism) than solitary hunters. Kill and consumption rates for Canidae – measured as kilograms of prey per kilogram of carnivore per day – are positively correlated with body mass, consistent with increasing energy costs associated with a cursorial hunting strategy. By contrast, ambush predators such as felids show an opposite trend, and thus the potential energetic advantage of an ambush hunting strategy for carnivores as body mass increases. Additionally, ungulate kill rates remain relatively constant across solitary felid body sizes, indicative of energetic constraints and optimal foraging. Kill rate estimates also reveal potential insights into trophic structuring within carnivore guilds, with subordinate carnivores often killing more than their larger counterparts, which may be indicative of having to cope with food losses to scavengers and dominant competitors. Subordinate carnivores may thus serve an important role in provisioning food to other trophic levels within their respective ecosystems. Importantly, kill rates also clarify misconceptions around the predatory behaviour of carnivores (e.g. spotted hyaenas <jats:italic>Crocuta crocuta</jats:italic> and wolverines <jats:italic>Gulo gulo</jats:italic> are often considered scavengers rather than the capable hunters that they are) and thus the potential impacts of various carnivore species on their ecological communities. Despite the importance of kill rates in understanding predator–prey interactions, their utility is not widely recognised, and insufficient research limits our ability to fully appreciate and predict the consequences of modified predation regimes, justify current management actions affecting carnivores, or inform effective conservation measures. Together with other important research on predator–prey interactions, robust kill rate studies that address the research deficiencies we highlight will provide a deeper understanding of the foraging behaviours and potential ecosystem impacts of many of the world's carnivores, thus aiding effective conservation and management actions.","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13143","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Through killing and instilling fear in their prey, large terrestrial carnivores shape the structure and function of ecosystems globally. Most large carnivore species have experienced severe range and population declines due to human activities, and many are now threatened with extinction. Consequently, the impacts of these predators on food webs have been diminished or lost completely from many ecosystems. Kill rates provide a fundamental metric for understanding large carnivore ecology and assessing and comparing predation within and across ecological communities. Our systematic review of large terrestrial mammalian carnivore kill rates reveals significant positive geographic (North America, Europe, and Africa) and taxonomic (grey wolf Canis lupus, puma Puma concolor, lion Panthera leo, and Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx) bias, with most studies apparently motivated by human–carnivore conflict over access to ungulate prey and wildlife management objectives. Our current understanding of the behaviour and functional roles of many large carnivore species and populations thus remains limited. By synthesising and comparing kill rates, we show that solitary carnivores (e.g. brown bears Ursus arctos and most felids) exhibit higher per capita kill rates than social carnivores. However, ungulate predation by bears is typically limited to predation of neonates during a short period. Lower per capita kill rates by social carnivores suggests group living significantly reduces energetic demands, or, alternatively, that group‐living carnivores defend and consume a greater proportion of large prey carcasses, or may acquire more food through other means (e.g. scavenging, kleptoparasitism) than solitary hunters. Kill and consumption rates for Canidae – measured as kilograms of prey per kilogram of carnivore per day – are positively correlated with body mass, consistent with increasing energy costs associated with a cursorial hunting strategy. By contrast, ambush predators such as felids show an opposite trend, and thus the potential energetic advantage of an ambush hunting strategy for carnivores as body mass increases. Additionally, ungulate kill rates remain relatively constant across solitary felid body sizes, indicative of energetic constraints and optimal foraging. Kill rate estimates also reveal potential insights into trophic structuring within carnivore guilds, with subordinate carnivores often killing more than their larger counterparts, which may be indicative of having to cope with food losses to scavengers and dominant competitors. Subordinate carnivores may thus serve an important role in provisioning food to other trophic levels within their respective ecosystems. Importantly, kill rates also clarify misconceptions around the predatory behaviour of carnivores (e.g. spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta and wolverines Gulo gulo are often considered scavengers rather than the capable hunters that they are) and thus the potential impacts of various carnivore species on their ecological communities. Despite the importance of kill rates in understanding predator–prey interactions, their utility is not widely recognised, and insufficient research limits our ability to fully appreciate and predict the consequences of modified predation regimes, justify current management actions affecting carnivores, or inform effective conservation measures. Together with other important research on predator–prey interactions, robust kill rate studies that address the research deficiencies we highlight will provide a deeper understanding of the foraging behaviours and potential ecosystem impacts of many of the world's carnivores, thus aiding effective conservation and management actions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对大型陆生食肉动物捕杀率的全球评估
大型陆生食肉动物通过捕杀猎物并让猎物感到恐惧,影响着全球生态系统的结构和功能。由于人类活动的影响,大多数大型食肉动物的活动范围和种群数量都出现了严重下降,许多物种现在濒临灭绝。因此,在许多生态系统中,这些食肉动物对食物网的影响已经减弱或完全消失。捕杀率是了解大型食肉动物生态学以及评估和比较生态群落内部和之间捕食情况的基本指标。我们对大型陆生哺乳类食肉动物捕杀率的系统性回顾显示了显著的地理(北美、欧洲和非洲)和分类(灰狼、美洲狮、狮子和欧亚猞猁)偏差,大多数研究的动机显然是人类与食肉动物在获取麋鹿猎物方面的冲突以及野生动物管理目标。因此,我们目前对许多大型食肉动物物种和种群的行为和功能作用的了解仍然有限。通过综合比较捕杀率,我们发现独居食肉动物(如棕熊和大多数猫科动物)的人均捕杀率高于群居食肉动物。然而,熊对麋鹿的捕食通常仅限于在短时间内捕食新生麋鹿。群居食肉动物的人均捕杀率较低,这表明群居生活大大降低了能量需求,或者说,群居食肉动物保护和消耗的大型猎物尸体的比例更大,或者说,群居食肉动物通过其他方式(如食腐、偷食寄生)获得的食物可能比独居捕猎者更多。犬科动物的捕杀率和消耗率(以每公斤食肉动物每天捕杀多少公斤猎物计算)与体重呈正相关,这与草食性捕猎策略导致的能量成本增加是一致的。相比之下,伏击捕食者(如猫科动物)则呈现出相反的趋势,因此随着体重的增加,食肉动物的伏击捕食策略具有潜在的能量优势。此外,在不同体型的独居猫科动物中,麋鹿的捕杀率保持相对稳定,这表明了能量限制和最佳觅食方式。对杀戮率的估计还揭示了食肉动物行会内部营养结构的潜在见解,从属食肉动物的杀戮率往往高于较大的食肉动物,这可能表明它们必须应对食腐动物和优势竞争者造成的食物损失。因此,从属食肉动物可能在各自生态系统中为其他营养级提供食物方面发挥着重要作用。重要的是,捕杀率还能澄清人们对食肉动物捕食行为的误解(例如,斑纹鬣狗(Crocuta crocuta)和貂熊(Gulo gulo)通常被认为是清道夫,而不是能干的猎手),从而澄清各种食肉动物物种对其生态群落的潜在影响。尽管捕杀率对了解食肉动物与猎物之间的相互作用非常重要,但其作用并未得到广泛认可,而且研究不足也限制了我们充分认识和预测捕食机制改变的后果、证明当前影响食肉动物的管理行动合理性或为有效保护措施提供信息的能力。针对我们所强调的研究缺陷进行强有力的捕杀率研究,再加上其他有关捕食者-猎物相互作用的重要研究,将使我们对世界上许多食肉动物的觅食行为和潜在的生态系统影响有更深入的了解,从而有助于采取有效的保护和管理行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
期刊最新文献
Optimism and pessimism: a concept for behavioural ecology. Worldwide comparison of carbon stocks and fluxes between native and non-native forests. Paleo-evo-devo implications of a revised conceptualization of enameloids and enamels. Anatomical adaptations of mangroves to the intertidal environment and their dynamic responses to various stresses. Invasion of the four kingdoms: the parasite journey across plant and non-plant hosts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1