What determines selection and abandonment of a foraging patch by wild giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) in winter?

Background, aim, and scopeForaging patches can be described as a nested hierarchy of aggregated resources, implying that study of foraging by wild animals should be directed across different spatial scales. However, almost all previous research on habitat selection by the giant panda has concentrated upon one scale. In this research, we carried out a field study to understand foraging patch selection by giant pandas in winter at both microhabitat and feeding site scales and, for the first time, attempted to understand how long it would stay at the feeding sites before moving on.Materials and methodsThe field survey was conducted from November 2002 to March 2003 at Fengtongzhai Nature Reserve (102°48′–103°00′ E, 30°19′–30°47′ N), Baoxing County of Sichuan Province, China, to collect data in both microhabitat and control plots. The microhabitat plots were located by fresh feces or foraging traces left by giant pandas, and the control plots were established to reflect the environment. Within each microhabitat plot, one 1 × 1 m2 plot was centralized at the center of each feeding site, in which numbers of old bamboos and old shoots, including eaten and uneaten, were counted, respectively.ResultsThe results showed that winter microhabitats selected by this species were characteristic of gentle slopes and high old-shoot proportions and that the latter was even higher at feeding sites. Two selection processes, namely, from the environment to microhabitats and from the latter to feeding sites, were found during this species’ foraging patch utilization. Giant pandas preferred to eat old shoots to old bamboo at feeding sites in winter and did not leave unless old-shoot density fell to lower than the average in the environment.DiscussionBoth microhabitats and feeding sites selected by giant pandas were characteristic of high old-shoot density, indicating that the preferred food item had a significant influence upon its foraging patch selection. The preference for gentle slopes by giant pandas was presumed to save energy in movement or reflect the need to sit and free its fore-limbs to grasp bamboo culms when feeding but also seemed to be correlated with an easier access to old shoots. The utilization of old shoots at feeding sites was assumed to help maximize energy or nutrient intake during their foraging.ConclusionsThe difference between microhabitat plots and control plots and between microhabitats and feeding sites uncovered a continuous selection process from the environment via microhabitats to feeding sites. The utilization of old shoots at feeding sites was parallel to the marginal value theorem. The selection and abandonment of foraging patches by giant pandas was an optimal behavioral strategy adapted to their peculiar food with high cellulose and low protein.Recommendations and perspectivesOur results uncovered the importance of multiple scales in habitat selection research. To further understand the process of habitat selection, future research should pay more attention to resolve the question of how to locate foraging patches under dense bamboo forests by the giant panda, which was traditionally considered to have poor eyesight, although our research has answered what type of habitats the giant panda prefers and when to leave.

[1]  F. Wei,et al.  Feeding strategy and resource partitioning between giant and red pandas , 1999 .

[2]  D. Ramp,et al.  Density dependence in foraging habitat preference of eastern grey kangaroos , 2002 .

[3]  E. Charnov.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[4]  A. Sih.  Optimal Foraging: Partial Consumption of Prey , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[5]  W. Gaines,et al.  Black bear resource selection in the northeast Cascades, Washington , 2003 .

[6]  A. Watkinson,et al.  Habitat selection by sympatric muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a lowland commercial pine forest , 2004 .

[7]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[8]  Douglas H. Johnson.  THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCE , 1980 .

[9]  J. Wiens.  Population Responses to Patchy Environments , 1976 .

[10]  James F. Wittenberger,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Scales in Habitat Selection , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[11]  F. Wei,et al.  Winter Microhabitat Separation between Giant and Red Pandas in Bashania faberi Bamboo Forest in Fengtongzhai Nature Reserve , 2006 .

[12]  R. O'Neill.  A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. , 1986 .

[13]  N. Perrin,et al.  Winter habitat selection by two sympatric forest grouse in western Switzerland: implications for conservation , 2003 .

[14]  Douglas W. Morris,et al.  Ecological Scale and Habitat Use , 1987 .

[15]  W. F. Mueggler.  Cattle Distribution on Steep Slopes. , 1965 .

[16]  F. Messier,et al.  Winter foraging by muskoxen: a hierarchical approach to patch residence time and cratering behaviour , 1995, Oecologia.

[17]  E. Laca,et al.  Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. , 1996 .

[18]  N. B. Kotliar,et al.  Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity , 1990 .

[19]  C. W. Cook.  Factors Affecting Utilization of Mountain Slopes By Cattle. , 1966 .

[20]  F. Wei,et al.  HABITAT USE AND SEPARATION BETWEEN THE GIANT PANDA AND THE RED PANDA , 2000 .

[21]  D. Reid,et al.  Giant panda selection between Bashania fangiana bamboo habitats in Wolong Reserve, Sichuan, China , 1991 .

[22]  Douglas W. Morris,et al.  OPTIMALLY FORAGING MICE MATCH PATCH USE WITH HABITAT DIFFERENCES IN FITNESS , 2000 .

[23]  P. Pedrini,et al.  Adaptive selection of foraging and nesting habitat by black kites (Milvus migrans) and its implications for conservation: a multi-scale approach , 2003 .

[24]  E. Revilla,et al.  Defining key habitats for low density populations of Eurasian badgers in Mediterranean environments. , 2000 .

[25]  Xuehua Liu,et al.  Microhabitat separation during winter among sympatric giant pandas, red pandas, and tufted deer: the effects of diet, body size, and energy metabolism , 2004 .

[26]  D. Lindburg,et al.  Giant pandas : biology and conservation , 2004 .

[27]  Derek W. Bailey,et al.  Large Herbivore Foraging and Ecological HierarchiesLandscape ecology can enhance traditional foraging theory , 1987 .

[28]  N. T. Hobbs,et al.  Should I stay or should I go? Patch departure decisions by herbivores at multiple scales , 2005 .

[29]  D. Morris.  Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes , 1992, Evolutionary Ecology.