Animal Interactions and the Emergence of Territoriality

Inferring the role of interactions in territorial animals relies upon accurate recordings of the behaviour of neighbouring individuals. Such accurate recordings are rarely available from field studies. As a result, quantification of the interaction mechanisms has often relied upon theoretical approaches, which hitherto have been limited to comparisons of macroscopic population-level predictions from un-tested interaction models. Here we present a quantitative framework that possesses a microscopic testable hypothesis on the mechanism of conspecific avoidance mediated by olfactory signals in the form of scent marks. We find that the key parameters controlling territoriality are two: the average territory size, i.e. the inverse of the population density, and the time span during which animal scent marks remain active. Since permanent monitoring of a territorial border is not possible, scent marks need to function in the temporary absence of the resident. As chemical signals carried by the scent only last a finite amount of time, each animal needs to revisit territorial boundaries frequently and refresh its own scent marks in order to deter possible intruders. The size of the territory an animal can maintain is thus proportional to the time necessary for an animal to move between its own territorial boundaries. By using an agent-based model to take into account the possible spatio-temporal movement trajectories of individual animals, we show that the emerging territories are the result of a form of collective animal movement where, different to shoaling, flocking or herding, interactions are highly heterogeneous in space and time. The applicability of our hypothesis has been tested with a prototypical territorial animal, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes).

[1]  Bai-lian Li,et al.  Why do population density and inverse home range scale differently with body size?: Implications for ecosystem stability , 2005 .

[2]  Piran C. L. White,et al.  Spatio-temporal patterns of home range use by foxes (Vulpes vulpes in urban environments , 1996 .

[3]  S. Levin THE PROBLEM OF PATTERN AND SCALE IN ECOLOGY , 1992 .

[4]  Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution , 1989 .

[5]  S. Harris,et al.  Ranging behaviour of juvenile red foxes and its implications for management , 2000 .

[6]  J. Fryxell,et al.  Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[7]  J. Grisham Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids, D.W. Macdonald, C. Sillero-Zubiri (Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004), Pp. xiv+450. Price $74.50 paper , 2005 .

[8]  Walter Jetz,et al.  The Scaling of Animal Space Use , 2004, Science.

[9]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Convex hull of N planar Brownian motions: exact results and an application to ecology. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[10]  S. Simpson,et al.  Modelling nutritional interactions: from individuals to communities. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[11]  S. Harris,et al.  Urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes): food acquisition, time and energy budgeting of a generalised predator , 1993 .

[12]  J. Stoyanov A Guide to First‐passage Processes , 2003 .

[13]  G. Schuetz,et al.  Exclusion process for particles of arbitrary extension: hydrodynamic limit and algebraic properties , 2004, cond-mat/0404075.

[14]  G. Orians,et al.  Spacing Patterns in Mobile Animals , 1970 .

[15]  J. Klafter,et al.  The random walk's guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach , 2000 .

[16]  Stefan Grosskinsky Warwick,et al.  Interacting Particle Systems , 2016 .

[17]  Colin Torney,et al.  Context-dependent interaction leads to emergent search behavior in social aggregates , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  G. Giusiano,et al.  Two interacting diffusing particles on low-dimensional discrete structures , 2002 .

[19]  V. M. Kenkre,et al.  Diffusion and home range parameters from rodent population measurements in Panama , 2005, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[20]  Martin Wikelski,et al.  Conservation physiology. , 2020, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[21]  Peter N. Laver,et al.  A Critical Review of Home Range Studies , 2008 .

[22]  T. E. Harris Diffusion with “collisions” between particles , 1965, Journal of Applied Probability.

[23]  J. Stamps Territorial behavior: testing the assumptions , 1994 .

[24]  Jörg Kärger,et al.  Propagator and mean-square displacement in single-file systems , 1995 .

[25]  S. Levin The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[26]  P. Moorcroft,et al.  Mechanistic home range analysis , 2006 .

[27]  J. Murray,et al.  Wolf-deer interactions: a mathematical model , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  I. Couzin,et al.  Self-Organization and Collective Behavior in Vertebrates , 2003 .

[29]  M. A. Lewis,et al.  Modelling territoriality and wolf–deer interactions , 1993, Nature.

[30]  JOHN FIEBERG,et al.  QUANTIFYING HOME-RANGE OVERLAP: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION , 2005 .

[31]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  Home range scaling: intraspecific and comparative trends , 1991, Oecologia.

[32]  C. Landim,et al.  Occupation Time Large Deviations for the Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process , 1992 .

[33]  O Bénichou,et al.  Random walks and Brownian motion: a method of computation for first-passage times and related quantities in confined geometries. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[34]  J. Krebs,et al.  The Tradeoff Between Territorial Defense and Foraging in the Great Tit (Parus major) , 1987 .

[35]  S. Levin,et al.  Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Modern Perspectives , 2013 .

[36]  V. M. Kenkre,et al.  Theory of home range estimation from displacement measurements of animal populations. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[37]  Andy M. Reynolds,et al.  Avoidance of conspecific odour trails results in scale-free movement patterns and the execution of an optimal searching strategy , 2007 .

[38]  Hanna Kokko,et al.  Territorial Defense, Territory Size, and Population Regulation , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[39]  M. Gorman,et al.  The Role of Odor in the Social Lives of Carnivores , 1989 .

[40]  D. Macdonald,et al.  The biology and conservation of wild canids , 2004 .

[41]  W. H. Burt Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals , 1943 .

[42]  Stephen Harris,et al.  Home‐range analysis using radio‐tracking data–a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals , 1990 .

[43]  Eldridge S. Adams,et al.  APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF TERRITORY SIZE AND SHAPE , 2001 .

[44]  Frederic Bartumeus,et al.  Animal movement, search strategies and behavioural ecology: a cross-disciplinary way forward. , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.

[45]  S. Majumdar,et al.  Random Convex Hulls and Extreme Value Statistics , 2009, 0912.0631.

[46]  R. Durrett,et al.  The Importance of Being Discrete (and Spatial) , 1994 .

[47]  Katrin White,et al.  A Model for Wolf-Pack Territory Formation and Maintenance , 1996 .

[48]  S. Harris,et al.  Flexible spatial organization of urban foxes, Vulpes vulpes, before and during an outbreak of sarcoptic mange , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[49]  Vincent Bretagnolle,et al.  Fishery Discards Impact on Seabird Movement Patterns at Regional Scales , 2010, Current Biology.

[50]  W. V. Winkle COMPARISON OF SEVERAL PROBABILISTIC HOME-RANGE MODELS' , 1975 .

[51]  N. G. van Kampen,et al.  Remarks on non-Markov processes , 1998 .

[52]  J. Hutchinson,et al.  Use, misuse and extensions of “ideal gas” models of animal encounter , 2007, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.