Redefining the landscape of fear conceptual framework; a review of current applications and misuses

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.2840v2
Subject Areas
Animal Behavior, Conservation Biology, Ecology, Neuroscience, Zoology
Keywords
Animal Behavior, Habitat Selection, Yellowstone, Giving-up density (GUD), Spatial Ecology, Evolutionary dynamics, Food-Webs, Mechanisms of coexistence, Conservation, Wildlife management
Copyright
© 2017 Bleicher
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Bleicher SS. 2017. Redefining the landscape of fear conceptual framework; a review of current applications and misuses. PeerJ Preprints 5:e2840v2

Abstract

Landscapes of Fear (LOF), the spatially explicit distribution of perceived predation risk as seen by a population, is increasingly cited in ecological literature and has become a frequently used “buzz-word”. With the increase in popularity, it became necessary to clarify the definition for the term, suggest boundaries and propose a common framework for its use. The LOF, as a progeny of the “ecology of fear” conceptual framework, defines fear as the strategic manifest of the cost-benefit analysis of food and safety tradeoffs. In addition to direct predation risk, the LOF is affected by individuals’ energetic-state, inter- and intra-specific competition and is constrained by the evolutionary history of each species. Herein, based on current applications of the LOF conceptual framework, I suggest the future research in this framework will be directed towards: (1) finding applied management uses as a trait defining a population’s habitat-use and habitat-suitability; (2) studying multi-dimensional distribution of risk-assessment through time and space; (3) studying variability between individuals within a population; and (4) measuring eco-neurological implications of risk as a feature of environmental heterogeneity.

Author Comment

This is the newer version of the manuscript post major revision. It has been refocused on clarifying the definition of the LOF, and discusses common misuses of the conceptual framework.