↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Prey Selection by an Apex Predator: The Importance of Sampling Uncertainty

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Prey Selection by an Apex Predator: The Importance of Sampling Uncertainty
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0047894
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miranda L. Davis, Philip A. Stephens, Stephen G. Willis, Elena Bassi, Andrea Marcon, Emanuela Donaggio, Claudia Capitani, Marco Apollonio

Abstract

The impact of predation on prey populations has long been a focus of ecologists, but a firm understanding of the factors influencing prey selection, a key predictor of that impact, remains elusive. High levels of variability observed in prey selection may reflect true differences in the ecology of different communities but might also reflect a failure to deal adequately with uncertainties in the underlying data. Indeed, our review showed that less than 10% of studies of European wolf predation accounted for sampling uncertainty. Here, we relate annual variability in wolf diet to prey availability and examine temporal patterns in prey selection; in particular, we identify how considering uncertainty alters conclusions regarding prey selection.Over nine years, we collected 1,974 wolf scats and conducted drive censuses of ungulates in Alpe di Catenaia, Italy. We bootstrapped scat and census data within years to construct confidence intervals around estimates of prey use, availability and selection. Wolf diet was dominated by boar (61.5 ± 3.90 [SE] % of biomass eaten) and roe deer (33.7 ± 3.61%). Temporal patterns of prey densities revealed that the proportion of roe deer in wolf diet peaked when boar densities were low, not when roe deer densities were highest. Considering only the two dominant prey types, Manly's standardized selection index using all data across years indicated selection for boar (mean = 0.73 ± 0.023). However, sampling error resulted in wide confidence intervals around estimates of prey selection. Thus, despite considerable variation in yearly estimates, confidence intervals for all years overlapped. Failing to consider such uncertainty could lead erroneously to the assumption of differences in prey selection among years. This study highlights the importance of considering temporal variation in relative prey availability and accounting for sampling uncertainty when interpreting the results of dietary studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 105 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 20%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 53%
Environmental Science 21 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 18 16%