Appendix A. Predator manipulation studies included in the meta-analysis.
TABLE A1. Predator manipulation studies included in the meta-analysis. Replication of the experiment RU: r = replicated or u = unreplicated experiment. Type of response, Rtype: R= reproduction, P = population size or both. Experiment type: SEC = simultaneous experimental and control areas, BA = before-and-after design, NE = natural experiment. Treatment: rem = removal of predators, add = increase in predator density. Experiment manipulation type, Mtype: open or exclosure. Efficiency of the predator manipulation (i.e., demonstrated change in predator densities), E: high or low. Cyclicity of prey species, C: yes or no. Predator/prey mass ratio, Pw. Effect size is calculated as ln(Xe/Xc), where Xe and Xc are the treatment and control prey responses. GLM denotes those experiments that were included in the generalised linear model selection process. |
No |
Reference |
RU |
Rtype |
Location |
Experi-ment type |
Treat-ment |
Mtype |
E |
Prey origin |
Prey type |
Pred. origin |
Predator type |
C |
Pw |
Spatial
scale |
Temporal scale (months) |
Effect size ln(Xe/Xc) |
GLM |
1 |
Ahola et al 2006 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
frog |
intro |
mink |
no |
38.65 |
1.07 |
72 |
0.51 |
x |
2 |
Baines 1991 |
r |
R |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
grouse |
native |
. |
no |
. |
. |
24 |
0.55 |
. |
3 |
Balser et al. 1968 |
r |
both |
N America |
BA/ SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ducks |
native |
corvids, raptors, mesopredators, weasel etc. |
no |
3.20 |
77.47 |
36 |
-0.10 |
x |
4 |
Banks et al 1998 |
r |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
intro |
rabbit |
intro |
red fox |
no |
2.57 |
10 |
19 |
1.83 |
. |
5 |
Banks et al 1999 |
r |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodent |
intro |
red fox |
no |
61.67 |
10 |
19 |
0.62 |
x |
6 |
Banks et al 2000 |
r |
both |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
large marsupial |
intro |
red fox |
no |
0.11 |
10 |
19 |
3.09 |
x |
7 |
Banks et al. 2004 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents |
intro |
mink |
yes |
31.83 |
1.07 |
60 |
1.44 |
x |
8 |
Bartmann et al. 1992 |
u |
R |
N America |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
deer |
native |
coyote |
no |
0.21 |
140 |
36 |
0.26 |
x |
9 |
Beasom 1974 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
deer |
native |
coyote, bobcat |
no |
0.15 |
21.86 |
18 |
0.93 |
x |
10 |
Blackwell 2003 |
u |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
intro |
small rodent |
intro |
stoat |
yes |
3.59 |
7.5 |
35 |
0.59 |
. |
11 |
Bolton et al. 2007 |
r |
both |
Europe |
BA |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
wader |
native |
red fox, crow |
no |
17.41 |
2.16 |
42 |
0.09 |
x |
13 |
Boonstra et al. 2001a |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
lynx, coyote, red fox |
no |
38.23 |
1 |
89 |
-0.91 |
x |
12 |
Boonstra et al. 2001b |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
lynx, coyote, red fox |
yes |
347.58 |
1 |
80 |
-0.14 |
x |
14 |
Byrom et al. 2000 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
lynx, coyote, red fox |
yes |
24.05 |
1 |
63 |
1.17 |
x |
15 |
Chesness et al. 1968 |
u |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
. |
intro |
grouse |
native |
mesopredators, corvids |
no |
1.86 |
10.36 |
28 |
0.51 |
. |
16 |
Clark et al. 1995 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
ducks |
native |
crow |
no |
0.58 |
10.2 |
4 |
0.18 |
x |
17 |
Cuthbert 2002 |
u |
R |
N Zealand |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
seabird |
intro |
stoat |
no |
0.56 |
4.2 |
18 |
-0.51 |
x |
18 |
Desy and Batzli 1989 |
r |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
carnivores, raptors, owls, snakes |
yes |
87.87 |
0.0013 |
6 |
0.89 |
x |
19 |
Dilks 1999 |
u |
P |
N Zealand |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
passerine |
intro |
stoat |
no |
7.40 |
0.5 |
51 |
0.20 |
x |
20 |
Dion et al. 1999 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
passerines |
native |
mesopredators |
no |
121.47 |
41 |
24 |
0.03 |
x |
21 |
Duebbert and Lokemoen 1980 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
ducks |
native |
mesopredators |
no |
6.39 |
259 |
28 |
0.43 |
x |
22 |
Edminster 1939 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
grouse |
native |
raptors, owls, mesopredators etc. |
no |
2.50 |
8.61 |
42 |
-0.03 |
x |
23 |
Ekerholm et al. 2004 |
u |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
both |
weasels, red fox |
yes |
51.91 |
0.02 |
7.5 |
0.26 |
. |
24 |
Erlinge 1987 |
u |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
weasels, mesopredators, owls, raptors |
no |
55.90 |
0.005 |
8 |
0.68 |
x |
25 |
Evans et al. 2006 |
u |
P |
N America |
BA |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ungulate |
native |
wolf |
no |
0.25 |
1 500 |
110 |
0.48 |
x |
26 |
Frey et al. 2003 |
r |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
intro |
grouse |
native |
coyote, mesopredators |
no |
4.92 |
25.95 |
31 |
0.52 |
. |
27 |
Garrettson and Rohwer 2001 |
r |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
ducks |
native |
coyote, mesopredators, weasel etc. |
no |
5.90 |
41.5 |
5 |
0.41 |
x |
28 |
Garrettson et al. 1996 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
ducks, coot, passerine |
native |
coyote, mesopredators |
no |
8.22 |
41.5 |
5 |
0.40 |
x |
29 |
Gasaway et al. 1992 |
u |
both |
N America |
BA |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
ungulate |
native |
wolf, grizzly bear |
no |
0.21 |
9 700 |
108 |
0.58 |
x |
30 |
Graham and Lambin 2002 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
small rodent |
native |
weasel |
yes |
2.81 |
0.085 |
25 |
0.00 |
x |
31 |
Greenwood 1986 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ducks |
native |
skunk |
no |
2.04 |
2.21 |
28 |
1.68 |
x |
32 |
Greenwood et al. 1990 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
ducks |
native |
mesopredators, ground squirrel |
no |
5.11 |
0.1 |
65 |
3.37 |
x |
33 |
Guthery and Beasom 1977 |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ungulate, grouse, small rodents |
native |
coyote, bobcat, mesopredators |
no |
43.09 |
2.25 |
19 |
0.34 |
x |
34 |
Hambäck et al. 2004 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
weasels, raptors, foxes |
yes |
61.35 |
0.0095 |
36 |
0.64 |
x |
35 |
Harris and Wanless 1997 |
u |
P |
Europe |
BA |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
wader |
native |
gulls |
no |
1.76 |
0.57 |
180 |
1.23 |
x |
36 |
Hatter and Janz 1994 |
u |
both |
N America |
BA |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ungulate |
native |
wolf |
no |
0.57 |
2 400 |
96 |
0.57 |
x |
37 |
Hayes et al. 2003 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ungulates |
native |
wolf |
no |
0.16 |
20 000 |
50 |
-0.01 |
x |
38 |
Henke and Bryant 1999 |
r |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents, rabbits |
native |
coyote |
no |
9.03 |
50 |
22 |
2.05 |
x |
39 |
Hodges et al 2001 |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
hare |
native |
lynx, coyote, red fox |
yes |
6.71 |
1 |
108 |
0.17 |
x |
40 |
Huitu et al. 2005 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
4.48 |
0.005 |
13 |
-0.22 |
x |
41 |
Imber et al. 2000 |
u |
R |
N Zealand |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
seabird |
intro |
rat |
no |
0.55 |
0.014 |
120 |
0.40 |
x |
42 |
Innes et al. 1999 |
u |
both |
N Zealand |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
passerine |
intro |
weasels, rat, mesopredators |
no |
5.46 |
9.14 |
96 |
0.57 |
x |
43 |
Jackson 2001 |
r |
R |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
waders |
intro |
hedgehog |
no |
5.79 |
0.59 |
3 |
1.63 |
x |
44 |
Janermo and Liberg 2005 |
u |
P |
Europe |
BA/NE |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
deer |
native |
red fox |
no |
0.30 |
3 |
60 |
0.84 |
x |
45 |
Kauhala 2004 |
r |
R |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
ducks |
both |
mesopredators |
no |
5.01 |
82.83 |
48 |
0.46 |
. |
46 |
Kauhala et al. 1999 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
hare |
both |
mesopredators |
no |
1.25 |
82.83 |
48 |
-0.40 |
. |
47 |
Kauhala et al. 2000 |
r |
both |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
grouse |
both |
mesopredators |
no |
2.80 |
79.75 |
48 |
0.86 |
. |
48 |
Kay et al. 1994 |
r |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
add |
open |
high |
intro |
small rodent |
native |
raptors |
no |
42.78 |
0.69 |
6 |
0.57 |
. |
49 |
Kinnear et al. 1998 |
r |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
medium marsupial |
intro |
red fox |
no |
0.77 |
2.95 |
108 |
2.29 |
x |
50 |
Kinnear et al. 2002, case 1 |
u |
P |
Australia |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
medium marsupial |
intro |
red fox |
no |
0.77 |
32.03 |
72 |
3.38 |
x |
50 |
Kinnear et al. 2002, case 2a |
u |
P |
Australia |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
medium marsupials |
intro |
red fox |
no |
1.74 |
22 |
96 |
2.86 |
x |
50 |
Kinnear et al. 2002, case 2b |
u |
P |
Australia |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
medium marsupial |
intro |
red fox |
no |
1.39 |
1.14 |
102 |
2.50 |
x |
50 |
Kinnear et al. 2002, case 3 |
u |
P |
Australia |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
medium marsupials |
intro |
red fox |
no |
1.39 |
. |
52 |
0.87 |
. |
50 |
Kinnear et al. 2002, case 4 |
u |
P |
Australia |
BA |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
medium marsupials |
intro |
red fox |
no |
1.74 |
120 |
120 |
3.05 |
x |
50 |
Kinnear et al. 2002, case 5 |
u |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
medium marsupials |
intro |
red fox |
no |
1.39 |
31 |
56 |
3.13 |
x |
51 |
Klemola et al. 1997 |
r |
R |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
4.48 |
2.58 |
10 |
1.13 |
x |
52 |
Klemola et al. 2000 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodents |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
4.48 |
0.005 |
9 |
1.39 |
x |
53 |
Korpimäki and Norrdahl 1998 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
small rodents |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
5.61 |
2.5 |
10 |
0.47 |
x |
54 |
Korpimäki et al. 2002 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
6.43 |
2.5 |
21 |
0.95 |
x |
55 |
Korpimäki et al. 2005 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents, shrew |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
6.83 |
2.5 |
21 |
0.47 |
x |
56 |
LaGrange et al. 1995 |
u |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
ducks |
native |
weasels, mesopredators |
no |
4.07 |
0.21 |
96 |
1.23 |
x |
57 |
Lindell and Forsman 1996 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
both |
open |
. |
native |
small rodent |
native |
snake |
yes |
1.48 |
0.01 |
12 |
0.21 |
x |
58 |
Lokemoen and Woodward 1993 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
fence |
high |
native |
ducks |
native |
mesopredators |
no |
4.80 |
0.1215 |
50 |
1.83 |
. |
59 |
Lokemoen et al. 1982 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
. |
native |
ducks |
native |
mesopredators, ground squirrel |
no |
6.62 |
0.0853 |
40 |
1.00 |
x |
60 |
Lomolino 1984 |
r |
both |
N America |
SEC |
add |
open |
low |
native |
small rodent |
native |
shrew |
no |
0.46 |
0.0025 |
4 |
0.22 |
x |
61 |
Lovegrove 1996 |
u |
both |
N Zealand |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
passerine |
intro |
rat |
no |
4.00 |
16.3 |
60 |
0.62 |
x |
62 |
Mahon 1999 |
u |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small marsupials and rodents |
intro |
red fox, cat |
yes |
120.07 |
12 |
21 |
0.65 |
x |
63 |
Major et al. 2006 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC/ NE |
(rem) |
open |
high |
native |
seabird |
intro |
rat |
no |
3.13 |
. |
28 |
-0.12 |
. |
64 |
Marcström et al. 1988 |
r |
both |
Europe |
BA/ SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
grouse |
native |
red fox, marten |
no |
3.28 |
21 |
48 |
0.50 |
x |
65 |
Marcström et al. 1989 |
r |
P |
Europe |
BA/ SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
hare |
native |
red fox, marten |
no |
1.47 |
21 |
48 |
0.33 |
x |
66 |
Martin et al. 2001 |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
grouse |
native |
lynx, coyote, red fox |
yes |
16.99 |
0.36 |
101 |
-0.81 |
x |
67 |
Martin and Joron 2003 |
u |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
passerines |
intro |
red squirrel |
no |
6.22 |
2.49 |
72 |
0.79 |
x |
68 |
Mayer and Ryan 1991 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
low |
native |
wader |
native |
carnivores, small rodents |
no |
77.74 |
0.017 |
15 |
0.54 |
x |
69 |
McKinney et al. 2006 |
u |
P |
N America |
BA |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
ungulate |
native |
cougar |
no |
0.69 |
87 |
54 |
0.93 |
x |
70 |
Meserve et al. 1996 |
r |
P |
S America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
owls, fox |
yes |
19.87 |
0.0056 |
51 |
0.07 |
x |
71 |
Millus et al. 2007 |
u |
R |
N America |
BA |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
seabird |
native |
deer mouse |
no |
0.19 |
0.0028 |
4 |
0.11 |
x |
72 |
Moorhouse et al. 2003 |
r |
both |
N Zealand |
SEC |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
parrot |
intro |
stoat, possum, rats |
no |
1.75 |
34.8 |
48 |
0.24 |
x |
73 |
Nie and Liu 2005 |
r |
both |
Asia |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
weasels, raptors, foxes |
no |
155.99 |
0.0015 |
30 |
0.66 |
x |
74 |
Nordström et al. 2002 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
waterfowl |
intro |
mink |
no |
0.56 |
1.07 |
72 |
1.24 |
x |
75 |
Nordström et al. 2003 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
passerines, gulls, waders |
intro |
mink |
no |
4.36 |
1.07 |
72 |
0.60 |
x |
76 |
Nordström et al. 2004 |
r |
R |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
seabird |
intro |
mink |
no |
11.33 |
1.07 |
72 |
1.23 |
x |
77 |
Norrdahl and Korpimäki 1995 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents, shrew |
native |
kestrel, owl |
yes |
5.06 |
3 |
41 |
0.09 |
x |
78 |
Norrdahl and Korpimäki 1996 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents |
native |
kestrel, owl |
yes |
2.91 |
3 |
41 |
0.04 |
x |
79 |
Norrdahl and Korpimäki 2000 |
r |
both |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
both |
small rodents, grouse, shrew, passerines |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
0.78 |
3 |
25 |
0.67 |
. |
80 |
Norrdahl et al. 2004 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodents |
native |
weasels, owls, kestrel |
yes |
3.98 |
2.5 |
31 |
0.81 |
x |
81 |
Parker 1984 |
u |
both |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
grouse |
native |
corvids |
no |
0.73 |
3.72 |
40 |
0.61 |
x |
82 |
Pearse and Ratti 2004 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
duck |
native |
coyote, mesopredators |
no |
6.21 |
41 |
17 |
0.37 |
x |
83 |
Pech et al. 1992 |
u |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
intro |
rabbit |
intro |
red fox, cat |
no |
2.37 |
160 |
25 |
0.97 |
. |
84 |
Potvin et al. 1992a |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
beaver |
native |
wolf |
no |
2.08 |
275 |
26 |
0.62 |
x |
85 |
Potvin et al. 1992b |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
deer |
native |
wolf |
no |
0.47 |
745 |
36 |
-0.21 |
x |
86 |
Rautiainen 2005 |
u |
R |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
duck |
intro |
mink, raccoon dog |
no |
2.76 |
2.43 |
24 |
-0.84 |
x |
87 |
Reid et al. 1995 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
carnivores, raptors |
no |
456.16 |
0.114 |
26 |
1.81 |
x |
88 |
Rimmer and Deblinger 1992 |
u |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
seabird |
native |
mesopredators |
no |
104.57 |
. |
8 |
0.77 |
. |
89 |
Risbey et al. 2000 |
u |
P |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
fence |
high |
both |
small rodent |
intro |
red fox, cat |
no |
119.23 |
12 |
42 |
0.88 |
. |
90 |
Robertson et al. 1994 |
u |
both |
S Pacific |
BA |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
passerine |
intro |
rat, cat |
no |
90.74 |
1.5 |
54 |
0.22 |
x |
91 |
Sargeant et al. 1995 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
. |
native |
duck |
native |
weasels, mesopredators, ground squirrel |
no |
3.66 |
1.42 |
41 |
0.88 |
x |
92 |
Sinclair et al. 2003 |
u |
P |
Africa |
BA/ SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ungulates |
native |
lion, hyena, jackals |
no |
0.32 |
3 150 |
96 |
1.55 |
x |
93 |
Sovada et al. 1995 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC/ NE |
(rem) |
open |
high |
native |
duck |
native |
coyote, red fox |
no |
12.06 |
0.6 |
2 |
-0.15 |
x |
94 |
Spencer et al 2002 |
r |
R |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
turtle |
intro |
red fox |
no |
1.85 |
0.25 |
21 |
1.35 |
x |
95 |
Spencer and Thompson 2005 |
u |
both |
Australia |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
turtles |
intro |
red fox |
no |
1.23 |
0.245 |
21 |
0.03 |
x |
96 |
Stout 1982 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC/ BA |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
ungulate |
native |
coyote |
no |
0.17 |
123 |
36 |
0.93 |
x |
97 |
Sullivan and Sullivan 1980 |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
add |
open |
. |
native |
small rodent |
native |
weasel |
no |
6.26 |
0.01 |
7 |
-0.33 |
x |
98 |
Summers et al. 2004 |
u |
R |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
open |
low |
native |
grouse |
native |
red fox, corvids |
no |
1.84 |
14 |
72 |
0.58 |
x |
99 |
Sundell 2003 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
add |
open |
low |
native |
small rodents |
native |
least weasel |
yes |
3.59 |
7.68 |
37 |
0.16 |
x |
100 |
Taitt and Krebs 1983 |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
heron |
yes |
61.33 |
0.0025 |
3 |
0.09 |
x |
101 |
Taitt et al. 1981 |
u |
both |
N America |
SEC |
. |
open |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
heron, raptor, owls |
yes |
24.77 |
0.0025 |
2 |
1.33 |
x |
102 |
Tapper et al. 1996 |
r |
both |
Europe |
BA/ SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
grouse |
native |
weasels, fox, corvids, rat |
no |
2.98 |
5.3 |
36 |
0.98 |
x |
103 |
Tocher 2006 |
r |
P |
N Zealand |
BA |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
lizards |
intro |
weasels, mesopredators, raptor, other mammals |
no |
46.22 |
0.0175 |
37 |
-0.06 |
x |
104 |
Towns 1991 |
u |
P |
N Zealand |
SEC |
rem |
open |
high |
native |
lizards |
intro |
rat |
no |
1.23 |
0.13 |
120 |
3.08 |
x |
105 |
van Aarde et al. 1996 |
u |
both |
Indian Ocean |
BA |
rem |
open |
high |
intro |
small rodent |
intro |
cat |
no |
185.71 |
290 |
168 |
0.18 |
. |
106 |
Vibe-Petersen et al. 2003 |
r |
P |
Africa |
SEC |
both |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
owls, raptors, mesopredators |
yes |
62.49 |
0.005 |
30 |
0.03 |
x |
107 |
Wilson et al. 1999 |
u |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
raptors, owls, weasel, fox, etc. |
yes |
23.00 |
0.09 |
25 |
0.55 |
x |
108 |
Wolff et al. 1999 |
r |
both |
N America |
SEC |
add |
excl |
low |
native |
small rodent |
native |
raptors |
no |
6.61 |
0.002 |
2.5 |
-0.13 |
x |
109 |
Ylönen et al. 1991 |
r |
P |
Europe |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodent |
native |
owls, buzzard |
yes |
20.77 |
0.005 |
4 |
-0.43 |
x |
110 |
Yunger 2004 |
r |
P |
N America |
SEC |
rem |
excl |
high |
native |
small rodents |
native |
coyote,fox, weasels, raptors, owls |
no |
68.86 |
0.006 |
9 |
-0.24 |
x |
111 |
Zanette et al. 2006 |
r |
R |
N America |
SEC/ NE |
(rem) |
open |
high |
native |
passerine |
both |
cat, rat, raptor, passerine |
no |
35.91 |
1.5 |
30 |
0.14 |
. |
LITERATURE CITED
1. Ahola, M., M. Nordström, P. B. Banks, N. Laanetu, and E. Korpimäki. 2006. Alien mink predation induces prolonged declines in archipelago amphibians. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:1261–1265.
2. Baines, D. 1991. Factors contributing to local and regional variation in black grouse breeding success in northern Britain. Ornis Scandinavica 22:264–269.
3. Balser, D. S., H. H. Dill, and H. K. Nelson. 1968. Effect of predator reduction on waterfowl nesting success. Journal of Wildlife Management 32:669–682.
4. Banks P. B., C. R. Dickman, and A. E. Newsome. 1998. Ecological costs of feral predator control: foxes and rabbits. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:766–772.
5. Banks, P. B. 1999. Predation by introduced foxes on native bush rats in Australia: do foxes take the doomed surplus? Journal of Applied Ecology 36:1063–1071.
6. Banks, P. B., A. E. Newsome, and C. R. Dickman. 2000. Predation by red foxes limits recruitment in populations of eastern grey kangaroos. Austral Ecology 25:283–291.
7. Banks, P. B., K. Norrdahl, M. Nordström, and E. Korpimäki. 2004. Dynamic impacts of feral mink predation on vole metapopulations in the outer archipelago of the Baltic Sea. Oikos 105:79–88.
8. Bartmann, R. M., G. C. White, and L. H. Carpenter. 1992. Compensatory mortality in a Colorado mule deer population. Wildlife Monographs 121:1–39.
9. Beasom, S. L. 1974. Relationships between predator removal and white-tailed deer net productivity. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:854–859.
10. Blackwell, G. L., M. A. Potter, J. A. McLennan, and E. O. Minot. 2003. The role of predators in ship rat and house mouse population eruptions: drivers or passengers? Oikos 100:601–613.
11. Bolton, M., G. Tyler, K. Smith, and R. Bamford. 2007. The impact of predator control on lapwing Vanellus vanellus breeding success on wet grassland nature reserves. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:534–544.
12. Boonstra, R., S. Boutin, A. Byrom, T. Karels, A. Hubbs, K. Stuart-Smith, M. Blower, and S. Antpoehler. 2001a. The role of red squirrels and arctic ground squirrels. Pages 179–214 in C. J. Krebs, S. Boutin, and R. Boonstra, editors. Ecosystem dynamics of the boreal forest - the Kluane project. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
13. Boonstra, R., C. J. Krebs, S. Gilbert, and S. Schweiger. 2001b. Voles and mice. Pages 215–239 in C. J. Krebs, S. Boutin, and R. Boonstra, editors. Ecosystem dynamics of the boreal forest - the Kluane project. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
14. Byrom, A. E., T. J. Karels, C. J. Krebs, and R. Boonstra. 2000. Experimental manipulation of predation and food supply of arctic ground squirrels in the boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1309–1319.
Hubbs, A. H., and R. Boonstra. 1997. Population limitation in arctic ground squirrels: effects of food and predation. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:527–541.
Karels, T. J., A. E. Byrom, R. Boonstra, and C. J. Krebs. 2000. The interactive effects of food and predators on reproduction and overwinter survival of arctic ground squirrels. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:235–247.
The experiment was started by Hubbs and Boonstra (1997); results from Byrom et al. (2000) since Karels et al. (2000) describe more overwinter survival, etc.
15. Chesness, R. A., M. M. Nelson, and W. H. Longley. 1968. The effect of predator removal on pheasant reproductive success. Journal of Wildlife Management 32:683–697.
16. Clark, R.G., D. E. Meger, and J. B. Ignatiuk. 1995. Removing American crows and duck nesting success. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:518–522.
17. Cuthbert, R. 2002. The role of introduced mammals and inverse density-dependent predation in the conservation of Hutton´s shearwater. Biological Conservation 108:69–78.
18. Desy, E., and G. O. Batzli. 1989. Effects of food availability and predation on prairie vole demography: a field experiment. Ecology 70:411–421.
19. Dilks, P. 1999. Recovery of a mohua (Mohoua ochrocephala) population following predator control in the Eglinton Valley, Fiordland, New Zealand. Notornis 46:323–332.
O’Donnell, C. F. J., P. J. Dilks, and G. P. Elliott. 1996. Control of a stoat (Mustela erminea) population irruption to enhance mohua (yellowhead) (Mohoua ochrocephala) breeding success in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 23:279–286.
The experiment was started by O’Donnell et al. (1996), final results were taken from Dilks (1999).
20. Dion, N., K. A. Hobson, and S. Lariviere. 1999. Effects of removing duck-nest predators on nesting success of grassland songbirds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1801–1806.
21. Duebbert, H. F., and J. T. Lokemoen. 1980. High duck nesting success in a predator-reduced environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:428–437.
Duebbert, H. F., and H. A. Kantrud. 1974. Upland duck nesting related to land use and predator reduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:257–265.
These publications were combined into one study, because they essentially report the same experiment; Duebbert and Lokemoen (1980) report results from the whole time span of the experiment, whereas Duebbert and Kantrud (1974) only report results from one year.
22. Edminster, F. C. 1939. The effect of predator control on ruffed grouse populations in New York. Journal of Wildlife Management 3:345–352.
23. Ekerholm, P., L. Oksanen, T. Oksanen, and M. Schneider. 2004. The impact of short-term predator removal on vole dynamics in an arctic-alpine landscape. Oikos 106:457–468.
24. Erlinge, S. 1987. Predation and noncyclicity in a microtine population in southern Sweden. Oikos 50:347–352.
25. Evans, S. B., D. M. Mech, P. J. White, and G. A. Sargeant. 2006. Survival of adult female elk in Yellowstone following wolf restoration. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1372–1378.
26. Frey, S. N., S. Majors, M. R. Conover, T. A. Messmer, and D. L. Mitchell. 2003. Effect of predator control on ring-necked pheasant populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:727–735.
27. Garrettson, P. R., and F. C. Rohwer. 2001. Effects of mammalian predator removal on production of upland-nesting ducks in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:398–405.
28. Garrettson, P. R., F. C. Rohwer, J. M. Zimmer, B. J. Mense, and N. Dion. 1996. Effects of mammalian predator removal on waterfowl and non-game birds in North Dakota. Transactions of the 61st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 61:94–101.
29. Gasaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D. V. Grangaard, D. G. Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and D. G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Monographs 120:1–59.
30. Graham, I. M., and X. Lambin. 2002. The impact of weasel predation on cyclic field-vole survival: the specialist predator hypothesis contradicted. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:946–956.
31. Greenwood, R. J. 1986. Influence of striped skunk removal on upland duck nest success in North Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:6–11.
32. Greenwood, R. J., P. M. Arnold, and B. G. McGuire. 1990. Protecting duck nests from mammalian predators with fences, traps, and a toxicant. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:75–82.
33. Guthery, F. S., and S. L. Beasom. 1977. Responses of game and nongame wildlife to predator control in South Texas. Journal of Range Management 6:404–409.
34. Hambäck, P. A., L. Oksanen, P. Ekerholm, Å. Lindgren, T. Oksanen,and M. Schneider. 2004. Predators indirectly protect tundra plants by reducing herbivore abundance. Oikos 106:85–92.
35. Harris, M. P., and S. Wanless. 1997. The effect of removing large numbers of gulls Larus spp. on an island population of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus: implications for management. Biological Conservation 82:167–171.
36. Hatter, I. W., and D. W. Janz. 1994. Apparent demographic changes in black-tailed deer associated with wolf control on northern Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:878–884.
37. Hayes, R. D., R. Farnell, R. M. P. Ward, J. Carey, M. Dehn, G. W. Kuzyk, A. M. Baer, G.L. Gardner, and M. O’Donoghue. 2003. Experimental reduction of wolves in the Yukon: ungulate responses and management implications. Wildlife Monographs. 152:1–35.
38. Henke, S. E., and F. C. Bryant. 1999. Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community in Western Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1066–1081.
39. Hodges, K., C. J. Krebs, D. S. Hik, C. I. Stefan, E. A. Gillis, and C. E. Doyle. 2001. Snowshoe hare demography. Pages 141-178 in C. J. Krebs, S. Boutin, and R. Boonstra, editors. Ecosystem dynamics of the boreal forest - the Kluane project. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Krebs, C. J., S. Boutin, R. Boonstra, A. R. E. Sinclair, J. N. M. Smith, M. R. T. Dale, K. Martin, and R. Turkington. 1995. Impact of food and predation on the snowshoe hare cycle. Science 269:1112–1115.
Hodges reports results from the whole study period.
40. Huitu, O., J. Laaksonen, K. Norrdahl, and E. Korpimäki. 2005. Spatial synchrony in vole population fluctuations – a field experiment. Oikos 109:583–593.
41. Imber, M., M. Harrison, and J. Harrison. 2000. Interactions between petrels, rats and rabbits on Whale Island, and effects of rat and rabbit eradication. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24:153–160.
42. Innes, J., R. Hay, I. Flux, P. Bradfield, H. Speed, and P. Jansen. 1999. Successful recovery of North Island kokako Callaeas cinerea wilsoni populations, by adaptive management. Biological Conservation 87:201–214.
43. Jackson, D.B. 2001. Experimental removal of introduced hedgehogs improves wader nest success in the Western Isles, Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:802–812.
44. Jarnemo A., and O. Liberg. 2005. Red fox removal and roe deer fawn survival - a 14-year study. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1090–1098.
45. Kauhala, K. 2004. Removal of medium-sized predators and the breeding success of ducks in Finland. Folia Zoologica 53:367–378.
46. Kauhala, K., P. Helle, E. Helle, and J. Korhonen. 1999 Impact of predator removal on predator and mountain hare populations in Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 36:139–148.
47. Kauhala, K., P. Helle, and E. Helle. 2000. Predator control and the density and reproductive success of grouse populations in Finland. Ecography 23:161–168.
48. Kay, B. J., L. E. Twigg, T. J. Korn, and H. I. Nicol. 1994. The use of artificial perches to increase predation on house mice (Mus domesticus) by raptors. Wildlife Research. 21:95–106.
49. Kinnear, J. E., M. L. Onus, and N. R. Summer. 1998. Fox control and rock-wallaby population dynamics - II. An update. Wildlife Research. 25:81–88.
50. Kinnear, J. E., N. R. Summer, and M. L. Onus. 2002. The red fox in Australia – an exotic predator turned biocontrol agent. Biological Conservation 108:335–359.
This article consists of six individual predator removals, which have been considered as independent experiments.
51. Klemola, T., M. Koivula, E. Korpimäki, and K. Norrdahl. 1997. Small mustelid predation slows population growth of Microtus voles: a predator reduction experiment. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:607–614.
52. Klemola, T., M. Koivula, E. Korpimäki, and K. Norrdahl. 2000. Experimental tests of predation and food hypotheses for population cycles of voles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 267:351–356.
53. Korpimäki, E., and K. Norrdahl. 1998. Experimental reduction of predators reverses the crash phase of small-rodent cycles. Ecology 79:2448–2455.
54. Korpimäki, E., K. Norrdahl, T. Klemola, T. Pettersen, and N. C. Stenseth. 2002. Dynamic effects of predators on cyclic voles: field experimentation and model extrapolation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 269:991–997.
55. Korpimäki, E., K. Norrdahl, O. Huitu, and T. Klemola. 2005. Predator-induced synchrony in population oscillations of co-existing small mammal species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272:193–202.
56. LaGrange, T. G., J. L. Hansen, R. D. Andrews, A. W. Hancock, and J. M. Kienzler. 1995. Electric fence predator exclosure to enhance duck nesting: a long-term case study in Iowa. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:261–266.
57. Lindell, L. E., A. Forsman. 1996. Density effects and snake predation: prey limitation and reduced growth rate of adders at high density of conspecifics. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1000–1007.
58. Lokemoen, J. T., and R. O. Woodward. 1993. An assessment of predator barriers and predator control to enhance duck nest success on peninsulas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:275–282.
59. Lokemoen, J. T., H. A. Doty, D. E. Sharp, and J. E. Neaville. 1982. Electric fences to reduce mammalian predation on waterfowl nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:318–323.
60. Lomolino, M. 1984. Immigrant selection, predation and the distributions of Microtus pennsylvanicus and Blarina brevicauda on islands. American Naturalist 123:468–483.
61. Lovegrove, T. G. 1996. A comparison of the effects of predation by Norway (Rattus norvegicus) and Polynesian rats (R. exulans) on the saddleback (Philesturnus carunculatus). Notornis 43:91–112.
62. Mahon, P. S. 1999. Predation by feral cats and red foxes and the dynamics of small mammal populations in arid Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sidney. 205 pp.
63. Major, H. L., I. L. Jones, G. V. Byrd, and J. C. Williams. 2006. Assessing the effects of introduced Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) on survival and productivity of least auklets (Aethia pusilla). The Auk 123:681–694.
64. Marcström, V., R. E. Kenward, and E. Engren. 1988. The impact of predation on boreal tetraonids during vole cycles: An experimental study. Journal of Animal Ecology 57:859–873.
65. Marcström, V., L. B. Keith, E. Engren, and J. R. Cary. 1989. Demographic responses of arctic hares (Lepus timidus) to experimental reductions of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and martens (Martes martes). Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:658–668.
66. Martin, K., C. Doyle, S. Hannon, and F. Mueller. 2001. Forest grouse and ptarmigan. Pages 240–260 in C. J. Krebs, S. Boutin, and R. Boonstra, editors. Ecosystem dynamics of the boreal forest - the Kluane project. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
67. Martin, J. L., and M. Joron. 2003. Nest predation in forest birds: influence of predator type and predator's habitat quality. Oikos 102:641–653.
68. Mayer, P. M., and M. R. Ryan. 1991. Electric fences reduce mammalian predation on Piping Plover nests and chicks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:59–63.
69. McKinney, T., T. W. Smith, and J. C. deVos. 2006. Evaluation of factors potentially influencing a desert bighorn sheep population. Wildlife Monographs 164:1–36.
70. Meserve, P. L., J. R. Gutiérrez, J. A. Yunger, L. C. Contreras, and F. M. Jaksic. 1996. Role of biotic interactions in a small mammal assemblage in semiarid Chile. Ecology 77:133–148.
Meserve, P. L., J. R. Gutiérrez, and F. M. Jaksic. 1993. Effects of vertebrate predation on a caviomorph rodent, the degu (Octodon degus), in a semiarid thorn scrub community in Chile. Oecologia 94:153–158.
Experiment started by Meserve et al. (1993), results taken from Meserve et al. (1996).
71. Millus, S.A., P. Stapp, and P. Martin. 2007. Experimental control of a native predator may improve breeding success of a threatened seabird in the California Channel Islands. Biological Conservation 138:484–492.
72. Moorhouse, R., T. Greene, P. Dilks, R. Powlesland, L. Moran, G. Taylor, A. Jones, J. Knegtmans, D. Wills, M. Pryde, I. Fraser, A. August, and C. August. 2003. Control of introduced mammalian predators improves kaka Nestor meridionalis breeding success: reversing the decline of a threatened New Zealand parrot. Biological Conservation 110:33–44.
73. Nie, H., and J. Liu. 2005. Regulation of root vole population dynamics by food supply and predation: a two-factor experiment. Oikos 109:387–395.
74. Nordström, M., J. Högmander, J. Nummelin, J. Laine, N. Laanetu, and E. Korpimäki. 2002. Variable responses of waterfowl breeding populations to long-term removal of introduced American mink. Ecography 25:385–394.
75. Nordström, M., J. Högmander, J. Laine, J. Nummelin, N. Laanetu, and E. Korpimäki. 2003. Effects of feral mink removal on seabirds, waders and passerines on small islands of the Baltic Sea. Biological Conservation 109:359–368.
76. Nordström, M., J. Laine, M. Ahola, and E. Korpimäki. 2004. Reduced nest defence intensity and improved breeding success of terns as responses to removal of non-native American mink. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55:454–460.
77. Norrdahl, K., and E. Korpimäki. 1995. Effects of predator removal on vertebrate prey populations: Birds of prey and small mammals. Oecologia 103:241–248.
78. Norrdahl, K., and E. Korpimäki. 1996. Do nomadic avian predators synchronize population fluctuations of small mammals? A field experiment. Oecologia 107:478–483.
79. Norrdahl, K., and E. Korpimäki. 2000. Do predators limit the abundance of alternative prey? Experiments with vole-eating avian and mammalian predators. Oikos 91:528–540.
80. Norrdahl, K., H. Heinilä, T. Klemola, and E. Korpimäki. 2004. Predator-induced changes in population structure and individual quality of Microtus voles: a large scale field experiment. Oikos 105:312–324.
81. Parker, H. 1984. Effect of corvid removal on reproduction of willow ptarmigan and black grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1197–1205.
82. Pearse, A. T., and J. T. Ratti. 2004. Effects of predator removal on mallard duckling survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:342–350.
83. Pech, R. P., A. R. E. Sinclair, A. E. Newsome, and P. C. Catling. 1992. Limits to predator regulation of rabbits in Australia: evidence from predator-removal experiments. Oecologia 89:102–112.
84. Potvin, F., L. Breton, C. Pilon, and M. Macquart. 1992a. Impact of an experimental wolf reduction on beaver in Papineau-Labelle Reserve, Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:180–183.
85. Potvin, F., H. Jolicoeur, L. Breton, R. Lemieux. 1992b. Evaluation of an experimental wolf reduction and its impact on deer in Papineau-Labelle Reserve, Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:1595–1603.
86. Rautiainen, A. 2005. Vieraspetojen tehopyynti kosteikkoluonnon hoitokeinona. M.Sc. Thesis, Dpt. of Applied Biology, University of Helsinki. 48 pp. [in Finnish]
87. Reid, D. G., C. J. Krebs, and A. Kenney. 1995. Limitation of collared lemming population growth at low densities by predation mortality. Oikos 73:387–398.
88. Rimmer, D. W., and R. D. Deblinger. 1992. Use of fencing to limit terrestrial predator movements into least tern colonies. Colonial Waterbirds 15:226–229.
89. Risbey, D. A., M. C. Calver, J. Short, J. S. Bradley, and I. W. Wright. 2000. The impact of cats and foxes on the small vertebrate fauna of Heirisson Prong, Western Australia. II. A field experiment. Wildlife Research 27:223–235.
90. Robertson, H. A., J. R. Hay, E. K. Saul, and G. V. McCormack. 1994. Recovery of the kakerori: an endangered forest bird of the Cook Islands. Conservation Biology 8:1078–1086.
91. Sargeant, A. B., M. A. Sovada, and T. L. Shaffer. 1995. Seasonal predator removal relative to hatch rate of duck nests in waterfowl production areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:507–513.
92. Sinclair, A. R. E., S. Mduma, and J. S. Brashares. 2003. Patterns of predation in a diverse predator-prey system. Nature 425:288–290.
93. Sovada, M. A., A. B. Sargeant, and J. W. Grier. 1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:1–9.
94. Spencer, R. 2002. Experimentally testing nest site selection: fitness trade-offs and predation risk in turtles. Ecology 83:2136–2144.
95. Spencer, R. J., and M. B. Thompson. 2005. Experimental analysis of the impact of foxes on freshwater turtle populations. Conservation Biology 19:845–854.
96. Stout, G. G. 1982. Effects of coyote reduction on white-tailed deer productivity on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:329–332.
97. Sullivan, T. P., and D. S. Sullivan. 1980. The use of weasels for natural control of mouse and vole populations in a coastal coniferous forest. Oecologia 47:125–129.
98. Summers, R. W., R. E. Green, R. Proctor, D. Dugan, D. Lambie, R. Moncrieff, R. Moss, and D. Baines. 2004. An experimental study of the effects of predation on the breeding productivity of capercaillie and black grouse. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:513–525.
99. Sundell, J. 2003. Population dynamics of microtine rodents: an experimental test of the predation hypothesis. Oikos 101:416–427.
100. Taitt, M. J., and C. J. Krebs. 1983. Predation, cover, and food manipulations during a spring decline of Microtus townsendii. Journal of Animal Ecology 52:837–848.
101. Taitt, M. J., J. H. W. Gipps, C. J. Krebs, and Z. Dundjerski. 1981. The effect of extra food and cover on declining populations of Microtus townsendii. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1593–1599.
102. Tapper, S. C., G. R. Potts, and M. H. Brockless. 1996. The effect of an experimental reduction in predation pressure on the breeding success and population density of grey partridges Perdix perdix. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:965–978.
103. Tocher, M. D. 2006. Survival of grand and Otago skinks following predator control. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:31–42.
104. Towns, D. R. 1991. Response of lizard assemblages in the Mercury Islands, New Zealand, to removal of an introduced rodent: the kiore. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 21:119–136.
105. van Aarde, R., S. Ferreira, T. Wassenaar, and D. G. Erasmus. 1996. With cats away the mice may play. South African Journal of Science 92:357.
106. Vibe-Petersen, S., H. Leirs, and L. de Bruyn. 2006. Effects of predation and dispersal on Mastomys natalensis population dynamics in Tanzanian maize fields. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:213–220.
107. Wilson, D. J., C. J. Krebs, and T. Sinclair. 1999. Limitation of collared lemming populations during a population cycle. Oikos 87:382–398.
108. Wolff, J. O., T. Fox, R. R. Skillen, and G. Wang. 1999. The effects of supplemental perch sites on avian predation and demography of vole populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:535–541.
109. Ylönen, H., J. Viitala, and T. Mappes. 1991. How much do avian predators influence cyclic bank vole populations? An experiment during a peak year. Annales Zoologici Fennici 28:1–6.
110. Yunger, J.A. 2004. Movement and spatial organisation of small mammals following vertebrate predator exclusion. Oecologia 139:647–654.
111. Zanette, L., M. Clinchy, and J. N. M. Smith. 2006. Combined food and predator effects on songbird nest survival and annual reproductive success: results from a bi-factorial experiment. Oecologia 147:632–640.