However, hunting success was only slightly higher in dense vegetation where it is thought to provide cover for stalking lions ( Funston et al.
An ongoing debate exists about the importance of landscape elements, such as erosion gullies, river confluences, kopjes (small rocky hills), and proximity to water, each with different structure and vegetation cover that influence predation risk ( Balme et al. 2007b Spong 2002), as is also documented for other carnivores ( Murray et al. Ogutu and Dublin (2004) showed that lion density is correlated positively with prey biomass and that prey availability seems to be more important than habitat characteristics in determining composition of lion prey ( Hayward et al. 2007a), sometimes modified by environmental factors such as rainfall that affect the body condition of prey ( Funston and Mills 2006 Mills et al.
2001 Hayward and Kerley 2005 Hayward et al. Large differences in the composition of lion prey are due to differences in prey availability, prey mass, lion sex and pride structure, and cultural differences, that is, differences in prey choice between prides through specialization ( Funston et al. Hence, prey body mass is a major factor influencing prey selection by lions ( Hayward and Kerley 2005). The smaller-sized impala ( Aepyceros melampus) generally is negatively selected ( Funston and Mills 2006 Hayward et al. Several studies show that female lions ( Panthera leo) generally take medium-sized species such as plains zebra ( Equus burchellii) and blue wildebeest ( Connochaetes taurinus), whereas males prey on larger species such as African buffalo ( Syncerus caffer- Funston et al. 2003), and can thereby trigger ecosystem cascades ( Carpenter et al. 1995 Owen-Smith and Mills 2006 Sinclair 1985 Sinclair et al. 2007a, 2007b Mills and Shenk 1992 Mills et al. 2009), and prey assemblage ( Hayward et al. 2008), their density, spatial distribution, and habitat selection ( Creel et al. Predation is known to influence the behavior of prey species ( Fischhoff et al. We argue that the cascading impact of lions on local mammal assemblages is spatially heterogeneous.īody weight, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Panthera leo, prey availability, prey composition, randomization, savanna, vulnerability Traits of prey species, including feeding type (food habits), digestion type (ruminant or nonruminant) or body size, did not explain locations of lion kills, and no seasonal patterns in lion kills were apparent. Water that attracted prey, and not the vegetation density in riverine areas, increased predation risk, with kills of buffalo ( Syncerus caffer), kudu ( Tragelaphus strepsiceros), and wildebeest ( Connochaetes taurinus) as water-dependent prey species. Lion kills were closer to rivers and to artificial water points than expected by random distribution of the kills. Lions selected medium-sized prey species. The distance between 215 lion kills and the nearest water source was analyzed using generalized linear models. The spatial distribution of lion kills was studied at the Klaserie Private Nature Reserve, South Africa. We separated the effects of vegetation density and the presence of drinking water by analyzing locations of lion kills in relation to rivers with dense vegetation, which offer good lion stalking opportunities, and artificial water points with low vegetation density. Predation risk from lions ( Panthera leo) has been linked to habitat characteristics and availability and traits of prey.
0 kommentar(er)
