Behavioral Indicators in Marine Conservation: Lessons from a Pristine Seagrass Ecosystem

in Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


In light of ongoing changes to marine ecosystems, there is a need for behavioral indicators that can identify critical habitats and assess anthropogenic impacts. Although the application of behavior to conservation has yielded mixed results, habitat selection behavior has promise as such an indicator. Terrestrial studies and a decade of work in Shark Bay's pristine seagrass ecosystem show that habitat selection theory based on the ideal free distribution can be used to assess critical habitats based on food and safety and signal impacts of anthropogenic disturbance. One lesson from our studies of dugongs (Dugong dugon) and other species at risk from tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) is that physical attributes of habitats may influence the effects of predators, and, by extension, human disturbance. These species generally prefer seagrass bank edges, which facilitate escape from sharks, even though shark density is lower over interior portions of the banks. Thus, habitat selection indicates that a bank's quality is determined largely by its proportion of edge microhabitat rather than its size, and that the presence of predators in neighboring habitats can influence prey space-use decisions where predators are scarce or absent. By extension, efforts to curb the effects of human disturbance, which can mimic those of predation risk, may be unsuccessful if protected areas border those subject to continued disturbance. Future marine studies should assess habitat selection in more disturbed habitats and across a range of physical settings to better elucidate the conservation benefits of using habitat selection as a behavioral indicator.

Behavioral Indicators in Marine Conservation: Lessons from a Pristine Seagrass Ecosystem

in Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution


  • Caro T. M. 2007. Behavior and conservation: a bridge too far? Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 394-400.

  • Clark C. W. 1994. Antipredator behavior and the asset-protection principle. Behav. Ecol. 5: 159-170.

  • Crowder L. B. 2005. Back to the future in marine conservation. In: Norse E. A. Crowder L. B. eds. Marine Conservation Biology. Island Press Washington DC pp. 19-29.

  • Altendorf K. B. Laundre J. W. Gonzalez C. A. L. Brown J. S. 2001. Assessing effects of predation risk on foraging behavior of mule deer. J. Mammal. 82: 430-439.

  • Anholt B. R. Werner E. E. 1995. Interaction between food availability and predation mortality mediated by adaptive behavior. Ecology 76: 2230-2234.

  • Bailey H. Thompson P. 2006. Quantitative analysis of bottlenose dolphin movement patterns and their relationship with foraging. J. Anim. Ecol. 75: 456-465.

  • Bejder L. Whitehead H. Samuels A. Mann J. Connor R. Gales N. Heithaus M. Watson-Capps J. Flaherty C. Krutzen M. 2006. Detrimental effects of cumulative long-term exposure to vessel activity on habitat use of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins. Conserv. Biol. 20: 1791-1798.

  • Blanchard J. L. Mills C. Jennings S. Fox C. J. Rackham B. D. Eastwood P. D. O'Brien C. M. 2005. Distribution-abundance relationships for North Sea Atlantic cod (Gadys morhua): observation versus theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 2001-2009.

  • Brown J. S. Kotler B. P. 2004. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol. Lett. 7: 999-1014.

  • Buchholz R. 2007. Behavioral biology: an effective and relevant conservation tool. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 401-407.

  • Caro T. M. 2005. Behavioural indicators of exploitation. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 17: 189-194.

  • Dill L. M. Heithaus M. R. Walters C. J. 2003. Behaviorally-mediated indirect species interactions in marine ecosystems and their importance to conservation and management. Ecology 84:1151-1157.

  • Ewers R. M. Didham R. K. 2007. The effect of fragment shape and species' sensitivity to habitat edges on animal population size. Conserv. Biol. 21: 926-936.

  • Fauchald P. K. Erikstad E. Skarsfjord H. 2000. Scale-dependent predator-prey interactions: the hierarchical spatial distribution of seabirds and prey. Ecology 81: 773-783.

  • Fretwell S. D. Lucas H. L. 1969. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 19: 16-36.

  • Frid A. Dill L. M. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6:

  • Gales N. McCauley R. D. Lanyon J. Holley D. 2004. Change in abundance of dugongs in Shark Bay Ningaloo and Exmouth Gulf Western Australia: evidence for large-scale migration. Wildl. Res. 31: 283-290.

  • Gill J. A. Norris K. Sutherland W. J. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biol. Conserv. 97: 265-268.

  • Gill J. A. Sutherland W. J. Watinson A. R. 1996. A method to quantify the effects of human disturbance on animal populations. J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 786-792.

  • Gillis D. M. Peterman R. M. Tyler A. V. 1993. Movement dynamics in a fishery: application of the ideal free distribution to spatial allocation of effort. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 323-333.

  • Gilroy J. J. Sutherland W. J. 2007. Beyond ecological traps: perceptual errors and undervalued resources. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 351-356.

  • Griffin C. A. M. Thaler J. S. 2006. Insect predators affect plant resistance via density- and trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol. Lett. 9: 338-346.

  • Guinet C. Dubroca L. Lea M. A. Goldsworthy S. Cherel Y. Duhamel G. Bonadonna F. Donnay J. P. 2001. Spatial distribution of foraging female Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazelle in relation to oceanographic variables: a scale-dependent approach using geographic information systems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 264: 251-264.

  • Halpern B. S. Selkoe K. A. Micheli F. Kappel C. V. 2007. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conserv. Biol. 21: 1301-1315.

  • Heithaus M. R. 2001. The biology of tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier in Shark Bay Western Australia: sex ratio size distribution diet and seasonal changes in catch rates. Environ. Biol. Fish. 61: 25-36.

  • Heithaus M. R. 2005. Habitat use and group size of pied cormorants (Phalacrocorax varius) in a seagrass ecosystem: possible effects of food abundance and predation risk. Mar. Biol. 147: 27-35.

  • Heithaus M. R. Dill L. M. 2002. Food availability and tiger shark predation risk influence bottlenose dolphin habitat use. Ecology 83: 480-491.

  • Heithaus M. R. Dill L. M. 2006. Does tiger shark predation risk influence foraging habitat use by bottlenose dolphins at multiple spatial scales? Oikos 114:257-264.

  • Heithaus M. R. Frid A. Wirsing A. J. Bejder L. Dill L. M. 2005. The biology of green and loggerhead turtles under risk from tiger sharks at a foraging ground. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 288: 285-294.

  • Heithaus M. R. Hamilton I. M. Wirsing A. J. Dill L. M. 2006. Validation of a randomization procedure to assess animal habitat preferences: microhabitat use of tiger sharks in a seagrass ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 75: 666-676.

  • Heithaus M. R. Burkholder D. Hueter R. E. Heithaus L. I. Pratt H. W. Jr Carrier J. C. 2007a. Spatial and temporal variation in shark communities of the lower Florida Keys and evidence for historical population declines. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 64: 1302-1313.

  • Heithaus M. R. Frid A. Wirsing A. J. Dill L. M. Fourqurean J. Burkholder D. Thomson J. Bejder L. 2007b. State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 837-844.

  • Hochman V. Kotler B. P. 2007. Patch use apprehension and vigilance behavior of Nubian Ibex under perceived risk of predation. Behav. Ecol. 18: 368-374.

  • Jackson J. B. C. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 5411-5418.

  • Jackson J. B. C. Kirby M. H. Berger W. H. Bjorndal K. A. Botsford L. W. Borque B. J. Bradbury R. H. Cooke R. Erlandson J. Estes J. A. Hughes T. P. Kidwell S. Lange C. B. Lenihan H. S. Pandolfi J. M. Peterson C. H. Steneck R. S. Tegner M. J. Warner R. R. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 146: 629-638.

  • Knight T. W. Morris D. W. 1996. How many habitats do landscapes contain? Ecology 77: 1756-1764.

  • Kotler B. P. Brown J. S. Bouskila A. 2004. Apprehension and time allocation in gerbils: the effects of predatory risk and energetic state. Ecology 85: 917-922.

  • Laundr� J. W. Hern�ndez L. Altendorf K. B. 2001. Wolves elk and bison: reestablishing the "landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park USA. Can. J. Zool. 79: 1401-1409.

  • Lotze H. K. Lenihan H. S. Bourque B. J. Bradbury R. H. Cooke R. G. Kay M. C. Kidwell S. M. Kirby M. X. Peterson C. H. Jackson J. B. 2006. Depletion degredation and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312: 1806-1809.

  • Lusseau D. 2004. The hidden cost of tourism: detecting long-term effects of tourism using behavioral information. Ecol. Soc. 9:

  • Moenting A. E. Morris D. W. 2006. Disturbance and habitat use: is edge more important than area? Oikos 115: 23-32.

  • Moran K. L. Bjorndal K. A. 2005. Simulated green turtle grazing affects structure and productivity of seagrass pastures. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 305: 235-247.

  • Morris D. W. 2003a. How can we apply theories of habitat selection to wildlife conservation and management? Wildl. Res. 30: 303-319.

  • Morris D. 2003b. Towards an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136: 1-13.

  • Myers R. A. Baum J. K. Shepherd T. D. Powers S. P. Peterson C. H. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315: 1846-1850.

  • Nelson E. H. Matthews C. E. Rosenheim J. A. 2004. Predators reduce prey population growth by inducing changes in prey behaviour. Ecology 85: 1853-1858.

  • Norse E. A. Crowder L. B. 2005. Marine conservation biology: the science of maintaining the sea's biodiversity. Island Press Washington DC.

  • Nowacek S. M. Wells R. S. Owen E. C. G. Speakman T. R. Flamm R. O. Nowacek D. P. 2004. Florida manatees Trichechus manatus latirostris respond to approaching vessels. Biol. Conserv. 119: 517-523.

  • Orth R. J. Carruthers T. J. B. Dennison W. C. Duarte C. M. Fourqurean J. W. Heck K. L. Jr. Hughes R. Kendrick G. A. Kenworthy W. J. Olyarnik S. Short F. T. Waycott M. Williams S. L. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56: 987-996.

  • Papastamatiou Y. P. Wetherbee B. M. Lowe C. G. Crow G. L. 2006. Distribution and diet of four species of carcharhinid shark in the Hawaiian Islands: evidence for resource partitioning and competitive exclusion. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 320: 239-251.

  • Parrish J. K. 2005. Behavioral approaches to marine conservation. In: Norse E. A. Crowder L. eds. Marine Conservation Biology. Island Press Washington DC pp. 80-104.

  • Peacor S. D. Werner E. E. 2001. The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 3904-3908.

  • Pinaud D. Weimerskirch H. 2007. At-sea distribution and scale-dependent foraging behavior of petrels and albatrosses: a comparative study. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 9-19.

  • Preen A. R. Marsh H. Lawler I. R. Prince R. I. T. Shepherd R. 1997. Distribution and abundance of dugongs turtles dolphins and other megafauna in Shark Bay Ningaloo Reef and Exmouth Gulf Western Australia. Wildl. Res. 24: 185-208.

  • Preisser E. L. Bolnick D. I. Benard M. F. 2005. Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 86: 501-509.

  • Reynolds J. D. Jennings S. 2000. The role of animal behavour in mrine conservation. In: Gosling L. M. Sutherland W. J. eds. Behaviour and conservation. Cambridge University Press Cambridge pp. 238-257.

  • Ripple W. J. Beschta R. L. 2003. Wolf reintroduction predation risk and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park. For. Ecol. Manag. 184: 299-313.

  • Ripple W. J. Beschta R. L. 2005. Wolves and the ecology of fear: Can predation risk structure ecosystems? Bioscience 54: 755-766.

  • Ripple W. J. Beschta R. L. 2007. Restoring Yellowstone's aspen with wolves. Biol. Conserv. 138: 514-519.

  • Ripple W. J. Larsen E. J. Renkin R. A. Smith D. W. 2001. Trophic cascades among wolves elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park's northern range. Biol. Conserv. 102: 227-234.

  • Robinson P. W. Tremblay Y. Crocker D. E. Kappes M. A. Kuhn C. E. Shaffer S. A. Simmons S. E. Costa D. P. 2007. A comparison of indirect measures of feeding behavior based on ARGOS tracking data. Deep-sea Res. Part II — Topical Stud. Oceanogr. 54: 356-368.

  • Schmitz O. J. 2006. Scaling from plot experiments to landscapes: studying grasshoppers to inform forest ecosystem management. Oecologia 145: 225-234.

  • Schmitz O. J. Hamback P. A. Beckerman A. P. 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am. Nat. 155: 141-153.

  • Sutherland W. J. 1998. The importance of behavioural studies in conservation biology. Anim. Behav. 56: 801-809.

  • Tregenza T. 1995. Building on the ideal free distribution. Adv. Ecol. Res. 26: 253-307.

  • Trussel G. C. Ewanchuk P. J. Matassa C. M. 2006. Habitat effects on the relative importance of trait- and density-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol. Lett. 9: 1245-1252.

  • van Baalen M. Sabelis M. W. 1993. Coevolution of patch selection strategies of predators and prey and the consequences for ecological stability. Am. Nat. 142: 646-670.

  • Walters C. Juanes F. 1993. Recruitment limitation as a consequence of natural selection for use of restricted feeding habitats and predation risk taking by juvenile fishes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2058-2070.

  • Williams R. Lusseau D. Hammond P. S. 2006. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biol. Conserv. 133: 301-311.

  • Wirsing A. J. Heithaus M. R. Dill L. M. 2006. Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) abundance and growth rates in a subtropical embayment: evidence from seven years of standardized fishing effort. Mar. Biol. 4: 961-968.

  • Wirsing A. J. Heithaus M. R. Dill L. M. 2007a. Living on the edge: dugongs prefer foraging microhabitats that allow escape rather than avoidance of predators. Anim. Behav. 74: 93-101.

  • Wirsing A. J. Heithaus M. R. Dill L. M. 2007b. Fear factor: Do dugongs (Dugong dugon) trade food for safety from tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier)? Oecologia 153: 1031-1040.

  • Wirsing A. J. Heithaus M. R. Frid A. Dill L. M. 2008. Seascapes of fear: evaluating sublethal predator effects experienced and generated by marine mammals. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 24: 1-15.

  • Yunger J. A. Meserve P. L Gutierrez J. R. 2002. Small-mammal foraging behavior: mechanisms for coexistence and implication for population dynamics. Ecol. Monog. 72: 561-577.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 30 30 3
Full Text Views 15 15 1
PDF Downloads 7 7 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0