Testing the sentinel method: live and artificial prey display contrasting patterns of predation across an urban gradient

Assessing changes in the intensity of biotic interactions across environmental gradients is a central issue in ecology. The sentinel method has been widely adopted to study predator-prey interactions by establishing patches of prey under different conditions that predators can attack. Sentinels, proxies for prey, are frequently worm-shaped prey resembling caterpillars and are specifically used to assess predation by arthropod-feeding predators, with predation measured as the rate of disappearance or evidence of predation after a certain period of exposure. While it has been suggested that artificial sentinel prey might produce divergent results to live prey, previous studies showed mixed results in the difference between these two prey types. Results are likely to vary with context, and the assessment of different prey types along urban gradients is still lacking. Here, we performed an experiment at ten sites across a natural-to-urban gradient in Suzhou (East China) combining live prey ..., , # Testing the sentinel method: live and artificial prey display contrasting patterns of predation across an urban gradient

Dataset DOI: [10.5061/dryad.t76hdr8dz](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.t76hdr8dz)

## Description of the data and file structure

This dataset contains the raw observational data from a field experiment designed to compare predation intensity using two methods—live prey and artificial plasticine prey—across a natural-to-urban gradient in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, East China.

The study tested the hypothesis that artificial sentinel prey (plasticine caterpillars) produce divergent estimates of predation intensity and patterns compared to live prey. Data was collected at ten primary sites, with some sites containing multiple sub-location replicates, resulting in a total of 16 location IDs. Predation events were identified and attributed to either avian or insect predators based on distinct attack marks (e.g., beak pecks vs. mandible marks).

#### **Methodology Summary*...,