全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2012 

Group Dynamics and Landscape Features Constrain the Exploration of Herds in Fusion-Fission Societies: The Case of European Roe Deer

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034678

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Despite the large number of movement studies, the constraints that grouping imposes on movement decisions remain essentially unexplored, even for highly social species. Such constraints could be key, however, to understanding the dynamics and spatial organisation of species living in group fusion-fission systems. We investigated the winter movements (speed and diffusion coefficient) of groups of free-ranging roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), in an agricultural landscape characterised by a mosaic of food and foodless patches. Most groups were short-lived units that merged and split up frequently during the course of a day. Deer groups decreased their speed and diffusion rate in areas where food patches were abundant, as well as when travelling close to main roads and crest lines and far from forests. While accounting for these behavioural adjustments to habitat features, our study revealed some constraints imposed by group foraging: large groups reached the limit of their diffusion rate faster than small groups. The ability of individuals to move rapidly to new foraging locations following patch depression thus decreases with group size. Our results highlight the importance of considering both habitat heterogeneity and group dynamics when predicting the movements of individuals in group fusion-fission societies. Further, we provide empirical evidence that group cohesion can restrain movement and, therefore, the speed at which group members can explore their environment. When maintaining cohesion reduces foraging gains because of movement constraints, leaving the group may become a fitness-rewarding decision, especially when individuals can join other groups located nearby, which would tend to maintain highly dynamical group fusion-fission systems. Our findings also provide the basis for new hypotheses explaining a broad range of ecological patterns, such as the broader diet and longer residency time reported for larger herbivore groups.

References

[1]  Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38: 419–422.
[2]  Foster WA, Treherne JE (1981) Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature 293: 466–467.
[3]  Lima SL (1995) Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect. Anim Behav 49: 11–20.
[4]  Giraldeau L-A, Valone T, Templeton JJ (2002) Potential disadvantages of using socially acquired information. Phil Trans R Soc B 357: 1559–1566.
[5]  Beauchamp G (2009) How does food density influence vigilance in birds and mammals? Anim Behav 78: 223–231.
[6]  Fortin D, Fortin ME (2009) Group-size-dependent association between food profitability, predation risk and distribution of free-ranging bison. Anim Behav 78: 887–892.
[7]  Thompson DBA, Lendrem DW (1985) Gulls and plovers: host vigilance, kleptoparasite success and a model of kleptoparasite detection. Anim Behav 33: 1318–1324.
[8]  Clark CW, Mangel M (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor Pop Biol 30: 45–75.
[9]  Cresswell W (1997) Interference competition at low competitor densities in blackbirds Turdus merula. J Anim Ecol 66: 461–471.
[10]  Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG (1997) Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 66: 692–703.
[11]  Robinette R, Ha J (2001) Social and ecological factors influencing vigilance by northwestern crows (Corvus caurinus). Anim Behav 62: 447–552.
[12]  Hebblewhite M, Pletscher DH (2002) Effects of elk group size on predation by wolves. Can J Zool 80: 800–809.
[13]  Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in Groups, Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
[14]  Rowcliffe JM, Pettifor RA, Carbone C (2004) Foraging inequalities in large groups: quantifying depletion experienced by individuals in goose flocks. J Anim Ecol 73: 97–108.
[15]  Minderman J, Lind J, Cresswell W (2006) Behaviourally mediated indirect effects: interference competition increases predation mortality in foraging redshanks. J Anim Ecol 75: 713–723.
[16]  Sansom A, Cresswell W, Minderman J, Lind J (2008) Vigilance benefits and competition costs in groups: do individual redshanks gain an overall foraging benefit? Anim Behav 75: 1869–1875.
[17]  Turchin P (1998) Quantitative Analysis of Movement. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, USA.
[18]  Borger L, Dalziel BD, Fryxell JM (2008) Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett 11: 637–650.
[19]  Fryxell JM, Hazell M, B?rger L, Dalziel BD, Haydon DT, et al. (2008) Multiple movement modes by large herbivores at multiple spatiotemporal scales. Proc Nat Am Soc 105: 19114–19119.
[20]  Schick RS, Loarie SR, Colchero F, Best BD, Boustany A, et al. (2008) Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions. Ecol Lett 11: 1338–1350.
[21]  Hawkes C (2009) Linking movement behaviour, dispersal and population processes: is individual variation a key? J Anim Ecol 78: 894–906.
[22]  Wakefield ED, Phillips RA, Matthiopoulos J (2009) Quantifying habitat use and preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: a review. Mar Ecol Progress series 391: 165–182.
[23]  Gross JE, Zank C, Hobbs NT, Spalinger DE (1995) Movement rules for herbivores in spatially heterogeneous environments: responses to small scale pattern. Landscape Ecol 10: 209–217.
[24]  Focardi S, Marcellini PM, Montanaro P (1996) Do ungulates exhibit a food density threshold? A field study of optimal foraging and movement patterns. J Anim Ecol 65: 606–620.
[25]  Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 131–135.
[26]  White KA, Murray JD, Lewis MA (1996) Wolf-deer interactions: a mathematical model. Proc R Soc B 263: 299–305.
[27]  Grünbaum D (1998) Using spatially explicit models to characterize foraging performance in heterogeneous landscapes. Am Nat 151: 97–115.
[28]  Carter J, Finn JT (1999) MOAB: a spatially explicit, individual-based expert system for creating animal foraging models. Ecol Model 119: 29–41.
[29]  Moorcroft PR, Lewis MA, Crabtree RL (1999) Home range analysis using a mechanistic home range model. Ecology 80: 1656–1665.
[30]  Wu H, Li BL, Springer TA, Neill WH (2000) Modeling animal movement as a persistent random walk in two dimensions: expected magnitude of net displacement. Ecol Model 132: 115–124.
[31]  Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibaut JM, et al. (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landscape Ecol 23: 603–614.
[32]  Benhamou S (1990) An analysis of movements of the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus in its home range. Behav Proc 22: 235–250.
[33]  Ward D, Saltz D (1994) Foraging at different spatial scales: dorcas gazelles foraging for lilies in the Negev desert. Ecology 75: 48–58.
[34]  Bergman CM, Schefer JA, Luttich SN (2000) Caribou movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 123: 364–374.
[35]  Morales JM, Ellner SP (2002) Scaling up movement in heterogeneous landscapes: the importance of behavior. Ecology 83: 2240–2247.
[36]  Fortin D (2003) Searching behaviour and use of sampling information by free-ranging bison. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54: 194–203.
[37]  Fortin D, Morales JM, Boyce MS (2005) Elk winter foraging at fine scale in Yellowstone National Park. Oecologia 145: 335–343.
[38]  Kareiva RM, Shigesada N (1983) Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56: 234–238.
[39]  Cain ML (1990) Models of clonal growth in Solidago altissima. J Ecol 78: 27–46.
[40]  Okubo A (1980) Diffusion and ecological problems: Mathematical models. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[41]  Murray MG (1981) Structure of association in impala, Aepyceros melampus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9: 23–33.
[42]  Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red-deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
[43]  Lott DF, Minta SC (1983) Random individual association and social group instability in American bison (Bison bison). Z Tierpsychol 61: 153–172.
[44]  Southwell CJ (1984) Variability in grouping in the eastern grey kangaroo, Macropus giganteus. II. Dynamics of group formation. Austr Wildl Res 11: 437–449.
[45]  Carter AJ, Macdonald SL, Thompson V, Goldizen AW (2009) Structured association patterns and their energetic benefits in female eastern grey kangaroos, Macropus giganteus. Anim Behav 77: 839–846.
[46]  Le Pendu Y, Briedermanm L, Gerard JF, Maublanc ML (1995) Inter-individual associations and social structure of a mouflon population (Ovis orientalis musimon). Behav Proc 34: 67–80.
[47]  Bekenov AB, Grachev IA, Milner-Gulland EJ (1998) The ecology and management of the saiga antelope in Kazakhstan. Mammal Rev 28: 1–52.
[48]  Pays O, Benhamou S, Helder R, Geard JF (2007) The dynamics of group formation in large mammalian herbivores: an analysis in the European roe deer. Anim Behav 74: 1429–1441.
[49]  Maublanc M-L, Cibien C, Gaillard JM, Maizeret C, Bideau E, et al. (1991) Le chevreuil. Rev Ecol Terre Vie 6: 155–183.
[50]  Gerard J-F, Le Pendu Y, Maublanc M-L, Vincent JP, Poulle ML, et al. (1995) Large group formation in European roe deer: an adaptive feature? Rev Ecol Terre Vie 50: 391–401.
[51]  San José C, Lovari S, Ferrari N (1997) Grouping in roe deer: an effect of habitat openness or cover distribution. Acta Theriol 42: 235–239.
[52]  Villerette N, Marchal C, Pays O, Delorme D, Gerard JF (2006) Do the sexes tend to segregate in field roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)? An analysis of group composition. Can J Zool 84: 787–796.
[53]  Frid A (1997) Vigilance by female Dall's sheep: interactions between predation risk factors. Anim Behav 53: 799–808.
[54]  Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[55]  Marchal C, Gerard J-F, Boisaubert B, Bideau E (1998) Instability and diurnal variation in size of winter groupings of field roe deer. Rev Ecol Terre Vie 53: 59–68.
[56]  Kutner M, Nachtsheim C, Neter J (2004) Applied Linear Regression Models. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Series, New York.
[57]  Maindonald J, Braun WJ (2007) Data analysis and graphics using R: An example-based approach. Cambridge University Press, New York.
[58]  Casellas E, Gautrais J, Fournier R, Blanco S, Combe M, et al. (2008) From individual to collective displacements in heterogeneous environments. J Theor Biol 250: 424–434.
[59]  Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83: 530–544.
[60]  Anderson DP, Forester JD, Turner MG, Frair JL, Merrill EH, et al. (2005) Factors influencing female home range sizes in elk (Cervus elaphus) in North American landscapes. Landscape Ecol 20: 257–271.
[61]  Kie JG, Ager AA, Bowyer RT (2005) Landscape-level movements of North American elk (Cervus elaphus): effects of habitat patch structure and topography. Landscape Ecol 20: 289–300.
[62]  Wall J, Douglas-Hamilton I, Vollrath F (2006) Elephants avoid costly mountaineering. Curr Biol R527–R529.
[63]  Smith JNM (1974) The food searching behaviour of two European thrushes. II. The adaptiveness of the search patterns. Behaviour 49: 1–61.
[64]  Haskell DG (1997) Experiments and a model examining learning in the area-restricted search behaviour of ferrets (Mustela putorius furo). Behav Ecol 8: 448–455.
[65]  Frair JL, Merrill EH, Beyer HL, Morales JM (2008) Thresholds in landscape connectivity and mortality risks in response to growing road networks. J Appl Ecol 45: 1504–1513.
[66]  Fortin D, Courtois R, Etcheverry P, Dussault C, Gingras A (2008) Winter selection of landscapes by woodland caribou: behavioural response to geographical gradients in habitat attributes. J Appl Ecol 45: 1392–1400.
[67]  Babin J-S, Fortin D, Wilmshurst JF, Fortin ME (2011) Energy gains predict the distribution of plains bison across populations and ecosystems. Ecology 92: 240–252.
[68]  Laurian C, Dussault C, Ouellet JP, Courtois R, Poulin M, et al. (2008) Behavior of moose relative to a road network. J Wildl Manage 72: 1550–1557.
[69]  Roever CL, Boyce MS, Stenhouse GB (2010) Grizzly bear movements relative to roads: application of step selection functions. Ecography 33: 1113–1122.
[70]  Houle M, Fortin D, Dussault C, Courtois R, Ouellet JP (2010) Cumulative effects of forestry on habitat use by gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the boreal forest. Landscape Ecol 25: 419–433.
[71]  Hebblewhite M, Merrill E (2008) Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. J Appl Ecol 45: 834–844.
[72]  Fortin D, Fortin M-E, Beyer HL, Duchesne T, Courant S, et al. (2009) Group-size-mediated habitat selection and group fusion–fission dynamics of bison under predation risk. Ecology 90: 2480–2490.
[73]  Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
[74]  Farnsworth KD, Illius AW (1998) Optimal diet choice for large herbivores: an extended contingency model. Funct Ecol 12: 74–81.
[75]  Fortin D, Fryxell JM, Pilote R (2002) The temporal scale of foraging decisions in bison. Ecology 83: 970–982.
[76]  McLoughlin PD, Boyce MS, Coulson T, Clutton-Brock T (2006) Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection. Proc R Soc B 273: 1449–1454.
[77]  Freeland WJ, Choquenot D (1990) Determinants of herbivore carrying-capacity - Plants, nutrients, and Equus asinus in northern Australia. Ecology 71: 589–597.
[78]  Ramp D, Coulson G (2002) Density dependence in foraging habitat preference of eastern grey kangaroos. Oikos 98: 393–402.
[79]  Cargnelutti B, Reby D, Desneux L, Angibault JM, Joachim J, et al. (2002) Space use by roe deer in a fragmented landscape some preliminary results. Rev Ecol Terre Vie 57: 29–37.
[80]  Coulon A, Cosson JF, Angibault JM, Cargnelutti B, Galan M, et al. (2004) Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Mol Ecol 13: 2841–2850.
[81]  Robb SE, Grant JWA (1998) Interactions between the spatial and temporal clumping of food affect the intensity of aggression in Japanese medaka. Anim Behav 56: 29–34.
[82]  Goldberg JL, Grant JWA, Lefebvre L (2001) Effects of the temporal predictability and spatial clumping of food on the intensity of competitive aggression in the Zenaida dove. Behav Ecol 12: 490–495.
[83]  Johnson CA, Grant JWA, Giraldeau L-A (2004) The effect of patch size and competitor number on aggression among foraging house sparrows. Behav Ecol 15: 412–418.
[84]  Monaghan P, Metcalfe NB (1985) Group foraging in wild brown hares: effects of resource distribution and social status. Anim Behav 33: 993–999.
[85]  Myers JP, Connors PG, Pitelka FA (1981) Optimal territory size and the sanderling: compromises in a variable environment. In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD, editors. Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological and psychological approaches. Garland Press, New York. pp. 135–158.
[86]  Grant JWA (1993) Whether or not to defend? The influence of resource distribution. Mar Behav Physiol 23: 137–153.
[87]  Sueur C, King AJ, Conradt L, Kerth G, Lusseau D, et al. (2011) Collective decision-making and fission–fusion dynamics: a conceptual framework. Oikos 120: 1608–1617.
[88]  Ruckstuhl KE, Neuhaus P (2002) Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses. Biol Rev 77: 77–96.
[89]  Ruckstuhl KE, Kokko H (2002) Modelling sexual segregation in ungulates: effects of group size, activity budgets and synchrony. Anim Behav 64: 909–914.
[90]  Michelena P, Bouquet PM, Dissac A, Forucassié V, Lauga J, et al. (2004) An experimental test of hypotheses explaining social segregation in dimorphic ungulates. Anim Behav 68: 1371–1380.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133