Kenneth A. Schmidt and Richard S. Ostfeld. 2008. Numerical and behavioral effects within a pulse-driven system: Consequences for shared prey. Ecology 89:635–646.

Appendix A. Summary of the literature review examining numerical and behavioral responses of predators within pulsed systems and their impacts on the abundance and reproductive success of avian prey.

Summary information for studies used in the literature review. Columns denote (from left to right): [1] Avian prey; [2] Primary prey (A = Apodemus, , C = Clethrionomys , D = Dicrostonyx, L = Lemmus, Lt = Lepus timidus, M = Microtus, P = Peromyscus, T = Tamias); [3] Cyclic (periodicity denoted in years) or episodic (E); [4–6] Correlation between rodent abundance (year t) and adult abundance (with time lag in years; NL = nonlinear response), reproductive success (year t), and juvenile abundance (year t), respectively. [7] Predator species; [8–9] Behavioral and numerical response, respectively (Y= yes, N = no; (d) = directly examined through studies of predators or experimentation, (i) = indirectly examined through statistical analyses, (c) = cites other work, I = inferred based on correlation with some measure of reproductive success, ND = not discussed, NE = not examined); [10] Habitat type; [11] Type of study (A = artificial nest study, D = largely examines long-term records of species abundance without a field component, E = experimental field study, F = non-experimental field study, M=modeling/simulations, S = analysis of synchrony between cycles, diet = analysis of predator diet, usually without information on changes in avian reproductive success or abundance to indicate in columns 4–6); References (see footnote). See Appendix B for full literature citations.

¹Beintema and Müskens (1987), ²Blomqvist et al. (2002), ³Gautheir et al. (2004), ⁴Bêty et al. 2001, ⁵Bêty et al. 2002, ⁶Ackerman (2002), ⁷Byers (1974), ⁸Pehrsson (1986), ⁹Brook et al. (2005), ¹⁰Wilson and Bromley (2001), ¹¹Roselaar (1979), ¹²Summers and Underhill (1986), ¹³Summers and Underhill (1987), ¹⁴Underhill et al. (1993), ¹⁵Summers et al. (1998), ¹⁶Angelstam et al. (1985), ¹⁷Angelstam et al. (1984), ¹⁸Lindström et al. (1987), ¹⁹Marcsrtöm et al. (1988), ²⁰Hörnfeldt (1978), ²¹Small et al. (1993), ²²Saniga (2000), ²³Šálek et al. (2004), ²⁴Wegge and Storaas (1990), ²⁵Reif et al. (2004), ²⁶Korpimäki et al. (1990), ²⁷Reif et al. (2001), ²⁸Nyström et al. (2005), ²⁹Steen et al. (1988), ³⁰Myrberget (1985),³¹ O’Donnell and Phillipson (1996), ³²Elliott et al. (1996), ³³Custer and Pitleka (1977), ³⁴Veistola et al. (1996), ³⁵Orell (1988), ³⁶Dunn (1977), ³⁷Hogstad (2000), ³⁸Haselmayer and Jamieson (2001), ³⁹Clotfelter et al. (in review), ⁴⁰Schmidt and Ostfeld (2003a), ⁴¹Schmidt et al. (2006), ⁴²Schmidt et al.(in review), ⁴³Hogstad (1995), ⁴⁴McShea (2000), ⁴⁵Seläs (2001), ⁴⁶Spidsø and Seläs (1988), ⁴⁷Moors (1983a,b), ⁴⁸Jędrzejewska and Jędrzejewski (1998), ⁴⁹Jędrzejewski et al. (1994a), ⁵⁰Jędrzejewski et al. (1994b), ⁵¹Murphy and Dowding (1995), ⁵²Järvinen (1985), ⁵³Järvinen (1990), ⁵⁴Steenhof and Kochert (1988), ⁵⁵King (1983), ⁵⁶Tapper (1979).

^a Indicates positive effect of voles on adult redstart abundance. Mustelids prey on both adults and nests; also breeding populations remain low ~3 year post rodent crash.

^b Indicates positive effect of voles on adult tit abundance. Mustelids are a winter predator on adult tits.

^c Cited in text, but no data given.

^d Based on diets of predators; no correlations to avian abundance or reproductive success available.

^e Observed a negative numerical response; fewer successful breeding attempts per year and fewer chicks produced per territory.

^f A more recent study by White and King (2006) has suggested that the lack of observing a functional response in Mustela erminea is due to the lack of sufficiently high (relative to Holartic standards) population fluctuations in Mus.During rare episodes of extreme mouse abundance birds are buffered from M. erminea predation.