study of predator vs prey relationships wikipeida

This suggests that predation risk is a function of the interaction between prey size and weaponry. Stankowich and Caro (2009) predict that larger prey species, by being better able to defend themselves against predators as well as by being more exposed, should benefit more from defensive weaponry (e.g., horns) than smaller species.

Risk imposed on the predator during prey capture is likely influenced not only by relative prey size but also by other prey and predator life history attributes, such as prey defense morphology (e.g., the presence of horns, spines, or plates) and behavior (e.g., grouping) that may repel predator attacks ( Packer 1983 Caro 2005 ), and predator social structure (e.g., cooperative hunting) that may improve hunting success rates ( Kruuk 1975 Fanshawe and FitzGibbon 1993 ).

Large African predators regularly predate ungulates double their mass ( Gittleman 1985 Owen-Smith and Mills 2008 ), with the possibility of injury or death to the predator during prey capture ( Hayward and Kerley 2005 ).Īccording to optimal foraging theory, a predator should select prey that offers maximum energetic benefits in terms of size, with minimum energetic costs and risks incurred during prey capture ( Pyke et al. The relationship between predator size and prey size is perhaps most critical for these larger predators, due to the challenges of capturing and subduing large prey ( Gittleman 1985 ). Among terrestrial carnivores, there is a body mass limit (21.5kg) above which a carnivore’s energy requirements necessitate predation on prey weighing more than 45% of the carnivore’s body mass ( Carbone et al. 2003 Owen-Smith and Mills 2008 Gervasi et al. Across a myriad of carnivore species, these prey preferences are influenced by the size of the prey relative to the size of the predator ( Gittleman 1985 Sinclair et al. Predators display prey preferences that in turn influence ecosystem patterns and processes such as biomass fluxes ( Owen-Smith and Mills 2008 ), the abundance of predators relative to prey ( Carbone and Gittleman 2002 ), and prey population composition and dynamics ( Sinclair et al. These findings provide insight into the predation pressures driving the evolutionary selection for large body size and horns in prey, and expanded resource access leading to predator sociality.Ĭheetah, horns, large carnivore, predator sociality, prey preference, prey size

The prey weight range accessible to solitary male cheetah is similar to that accessible to solitary female cheetah, suggesting that, in the absence of cooperative hunting, the slightly larger size of the male cheetah infers no hunting advantage. Male coalition cheetah have access to a broader weight range of prey than solitary cheetah, which may infer fitness benefits by way of expanded resource options. Horned females occur significantly more frequently in antelope species on the cusp of being too large for cheetah predation, supporting the hypothesis that horns evolved as an antipredator defense in the females of medium-sized prey. The size threshold above which prey is avoided by cheetah is lower for horned prey than non-horned prey, providing evidence that horns are a predation deterrent in medium-sized prey. An analysis of cheetah Acinonyx jubatus kill and prey abundance information from throughout South Africa shows that the presence of prey horns and the type of cheetah social group interact with prey size to influence cheetah prey preference. Trends in prey preferences of the large African predators have been described at a species scale, limiting our ability to assess the influence of prey morphology (size and horns) and predator social structure (sex and sociality) on prey preferences. Understanding the determinants of a predator’s prey preferences is therefore important. Predator prey preferences shape the dynamics of predator–prey assemblages.

Study of predator vs prey relationships wikipeida