Habitat use of sympatric prey suggests divergent anti-predator responses to recolonizing gray wolves.

The non-consumptive effects of predators on prey are now widely recognized, but the need remains for studies identifying the factors that determine how particular prey species respond behaviorally when threatened with predation. We took advantage of ongoing gray wolf (Canis lupus) recolonization in eastern Washington, USA, to contrast habitat use of two sympatric prey species-mule (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed (O. virginianus) deer-at sites with and without established wolf packs. Under the hypothesis that the nature and scale of responses by these ungulates to wolf predation risk depend on their divergent flight tactics (i.e., modes of fleeing from an approaching predator), we predicted that (1) mule deer would respond to wolves with coarse-scale spatial shifts to rugged terrain favoring their stotting tactic; (2) white-tailed deer would manage wolf risk with fine-scale shifts toward gentle terrain facilitating their galloping tactic within their current home range. Resource selection functions based on 61 mule deer and 59 white-tailed deer equipped with GPS radio-collars from 2013 to 2016 revealed that habitat use for each species was altered by wolf presence, but in divergent ways that supported our predictions. Our findings add to a growing literature highlighting flight behavior as a viable predictor of prey responses to predation risk across multiple ecosystem types. Consequently, they suggest that predators could initiate multiple indirect non-consumptive effects in the same ecosystem that are transmitted by divergent responses of sympatric prey with different flight tactics.

Alaskan brown bears (Ursus arctos) aggregate and display fidelity to foraging neighborhoods while preying on Pacific salmon along small streams.

The interaction between brown bears (Ursus arctos) and Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) is important to the population dynamics of both species and a celebrated example of consumer-mediated nutrient transport. Yet, much of the site-specific information we have about the bears in this relationship comes from observations at a few highly visible but unrepresentative locations and a small number of radio-telemetry studies. Consequently, our understanding of brown bear abundance and behavior at more cryptic locations where they commonly feed on salmon, including small spawning streams, remains limited. We employed a noninvasive genetic approach (barbed wire hair snares) over four summers (2012-2015) to document patterns of brown bear abundance and movement among six spawning streams for sockeye salmon, O. nerka, in southwestern Alaska. The streams were grouped into two trios on opposite sides of Lake Aleknagik. Thus, we predicted that most bears would forage within only one trio during the spawning season because of the energetic costs associated with swimming between them or traveling around the lake and show fidelity to particular trios across years because of the benefits of familiarity with local salmon dynamics and stream characteristics. Huggins closed-capture models based on encounter histories from genotyped hair samples revealed that as many as 41 individuals visited single streams during the annual 6-week sampling season. Bears also moved freely among trios of streams but rarely moved between these putative foraging neighborhoods, either during or between years. By implication, even small salmon spawning streams can serve as important resources for brown bears, and consistent use of stream neighborhoods by certain bears may play an important role in spatially structuring coastal bear populations. Our findings also underscore the efficacy of noninvasive hair snagging and genetic analysis for examining bear abundance and movements at relatively fine spatial and temporal scales.