2. Copyright ©2003 by the National Academy of Sciences Van Bael, Sunshine A. et al. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8304-8307 Fig. 1. Chewing-arthropod density and leaf damage for canopy branches and understory/edge saplings, where foliage was inaccessible (open bars) and accessible (hatched bars) to bird foraging

4. Published by AAAS M. B. Kalka et al., Science 320, 71 (2008) Fig. 1. (A) Mean number of arthropods per m2 per census

5. Published by AAAS K. Williams-Guillén et al., Science 320, 70 (2008) Fig. 1. Mean number of arthropods {+/-} SEM per 100 coffee leaves in four exclosure treatments in (A) dry season and (B) wet season

6. Predator interactions are context dependent

10. SCARED TO DEATH? THE EFFECTS OF INTIMIDATION AND CONSUMPTION IN PREDATOR–PREY INTERACTIONS Evan L. Preisser1, Daniel I. Bolnick2, and Michael F. Benard Center for Population Biology, University of California—Davis, Davis, California 96516 USA12

13. Published by AAAS R. A. Myers et al., Science 315, 1846 -1850 (2007) Fig. 3. (A) Map of southeastern United States indicating the study location (inset) and North Carolina bay scallop monitoring sites

14. Published by AAAS R. A. Myers et al., Science 315, 1846 -1850 (2007) Fig. 1. Change over time in species at each trophic level as estimated from individual data sources: great sharks (top), elasmobranch mesopredators (middle), and bivalves (bottom)

15. Published by AAAS R. A. Myers et al., Science 315, 1846 -1850 (2007) Fig. 2. Instantaneous rates of change in relative abundance ({+/-}95% confidence intervals) for (A) great sharks and (B) elasmobranch mesopredators, as estimated by random-effects meta-analyses of research survey ({blacksquare}) and fisheries ({blacktriangleup}) data

16. Next class