Functional connectivity in ruminants: A generalized state-dependent modelling approach

Animal behaviour is increasingly seen as an important component in maintaining functional connectivity between patches in fragmented landscapes. However, models that explicitly incorporate behavioural trade-offs are rarely applied to landscape planning problems like connectivity. The aim of this study was to explore how state-dependent behaviour influenced functional connectivity between patches from a theoretical perspective. We investigated how inter-patch distances influenced functional connectivity using a dynamic state variable model framework. The decision making process of an individual ruminant facing fitness trade-offs in staying in its patch of origin or moving to another patch at various distances were explicitly modelled. We incorporated energetic costs and predation costs of feeding, ruminating, and resting while in the patch and for transit between patches based on inter-patch distance. Functional connectivity was maintained with isolated patches when they offered high intake and the inactivity of rumination associated with rapid gut fill resulted in reduced predation risk. Nevertheless, individuals in high energetic state often would forgo moving to another patch, whereas individuals in poor energetic states were forced to accept the cost of movement to best meet their requirements in the distant patch. The inclusion of state-dependent behavioural models provides important insights into functional connectivity in fragmented landscapes and helps integrate animal behaviour into landscape planning. We discuss the consequences of our findings for landscape planning to show how the approach provides a heuristic tool to assess alternative scenarios for restoring landscape functional connectivity.

[1]  R. Courtois,et al.  Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors , 2005 .

[2]  Daniel Fortin,et al.  Group-size-dependent association between food profitability, predation risk and distribution of free-ranging bison , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  H. Beyer,et al.  Thresholds in landscape connectivity and mortality risks in response to growing road networks , 2008 .

[4]  Darcy R. Visscher,et al.  Hierarchical trade-offs between risk and reward mediated by behavior , 2017, Mammal Research.

[5]  Marc Mangel,et al.  Individuals on the landscape : behavior can mitigate landscape differences among habitats , 1997 .

[6]  OPTIMAL FORAGING AMONG COMPETITORS AND PREDATORS: A STATE-DEPENDENT MODEL INCORPORATING GAME THEORY , 2004 .

[7]  L. Cordes,et al.  Behavioral Responses Associated with a Human-Mediated Predator Shelter , 2014, PloS one.

[8]  D. Mason,et al.  Effects of habitat destruction and resource supplementation in a predator-prey metapopulation model. , 2001, Journal of theoretical biology.

[9]  Colin W. Clark,et al.  Antipredator behavior and the asset-protection principle , 1994 .

[10]  Oded Berger-Tal,et al.  Research Priorities from Animal Behaviour for Maximising Conservation Progress. , 2016, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[11]  Cameron S Gillies,et al.  Riparian corridors enhance movement of a forest specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation , 2004 .

[13]  R. Swihart,et al.  Explaining movement decisions of forest rodents in fragmented landscapes , 2007 .

[14]  R. Macarthur,et al.  On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[15]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Behavioral tradeoffs when dispersing across a patchy landscape , 2005 .

[16]  M. Hebblewhite,et al.  Human Activity Differentially Redistributes Large Mammals in the Canadian Rockies National Parks , 2011 .

[17]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes , 2004 .

[18]  P. Banks.  Nonlinearity in the predation risk of prey mobility , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  Matthew J. Smith,et al.  Improving inferences about functional connectivity from animal translocation experiments , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[20]  K. Parker,et al.  Interpreting Resource Selection at Different Scales for Woodland Caribou in Winter , 2006 .

[21]  D. Kramer,et al.  The Behavioral Ecology of Intermittent Locomotion1 , 2001 .

[22]  J. Newman,et al.  Optimal diet selection by a generalist grazing herbivore , 1995 .

[23]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure , 1993 .

[24]  W. Kristan.  The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source -sink systems and ecological traps , 2003 .

[25]  T. Caro.  Behavior and conservation, conservation and behavior , 2016, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences.

[26]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  Multiple causes of sexual segregation in European red deer: enlightenments from varying breeding phenology at high and low latitude , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  C. C. Clair,et al.  Behavioural syndromes predict loss of migration in wild elk , 2016, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  J. E. Knight,et al.  Fall grazing affects big game forage on rough fescue grasslands. , 2003 .

[29]  E. Revilla,et al.  A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Marc Bélisle,et al.  MEASURING LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: THE CHALLENGE OF BEHAVIORAL LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY , 2005 .

[31]  M. Hebblewhite,et al.  HUMAN ACTIVITY MEDIATES A TROPHIC CASCADE CAUSED BY WOLVES , 2005, Ecology.

[32]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World , 2003, Conservation Biology.

[33]  D. Kramer,et al.  Vigilance as a benefit of intermittent locomotion in small mammals , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  Zhigang Jiang,et al.  A Spatially Explicit Model of Functional Connectivity for the Endangered Przewalski’s Gazelle (Procapra przewalskii) in a Patchy Landscape , 2013, PloS one.

[35]  Silke Bauer,et al.  Mechanistic models of animal migration behaviour--their diversity, structure and use. , 2013, The Journal of animal ecology.

[36]  C. Yackulic,et al.  Benefits of the destinations, not costs of the journeys, shape partial migration patterns , 2017, The Journal of animal ecology.

[37]  J. Kie,et al.  Sex-Specific Responses of North American Elk to Habitat Manipulation , 2009 .

[38]  A. Hansen,et al.  Connecting models to movements: testing connectivity model predictions against empirical migration and dispersal data , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[39]  M. Boyce,et al.  Foraging costs of vigilance in large mammalian herbivores , 2004 .

[40]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments , 1997 .

[41]  Zhilan Feng,et al.  Population consequences of movement decisions in a patchy landscape , 2003 .

[42]  S. Matter,et al.  Interactions between habitat quality and connectivity affect immigration but not abundance or population growth of the butterfly, Parnassius smintheus. , 2009 .

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

[44]  A. Otte,et al.  Connectivity analysis as a tool for assessing restoration success , 2018, Landscape Ecology.

[45]  M. Hebblewhite,et al.  Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate. , 2009, Ecology.

[46]  F. Burel,et al.  Connectivity measures: a review , 2008, Landscape Ecology.

[47]  P. V. Soest.  Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant , 1994 .

[48]  P. Cross,et al.  Trade-offs of predation and foraging explain sexual segregation in African buffalo. , 2008, The Journal of animal ecology.

[49]  J. Stamps,et al.  The silver spoon effect and habitat selection by natal dispersers. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[50]  M. Fortin,et al.  INFLUENCE OF FOREST COVER ON THE MOVEMENTS OF FOREST BIRDS: A HOMING EXPERIMENT , 2001 .

[51]  D. Capizzi,et al.  Habitat improvement and effects on brown hare Lepus europaeus and roe deer Capreolus capreolus: a case study in northern Italy , 2005 .

[52]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Attractive sinks, or how individual behavioural decisions determine source–sink dynamics , 2001 .

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

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

[55]  S. Bauer,et al.  Many routes lead to Rome: potential causes for the multi-route migration system of Red Knots, Calidris canutus Islandica. , 2010, Ecology.

[56]  A. Houston,et al.  The value of fat reserves and the tradeoff between starvation and predation , 1990, Acta biotheoretica.

[57]  A. Houston,et al.  General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation , 1993 .

[58]  S. Creel,et al.  What best explains vigilance in elk: characteristics of prey, predators, or the environment? , 2008 .

[59]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[60]  E. Marschall,et al.  The cost of dispersal: predation as a function of movement and site familiarity in ruffed grouse , 2004 .

[61]  Darcy R. Visscher,et al.  Human risk induced behavioral shifts in refuge use by elk in an agricultural matrix , 2017 .

[62]  E. Merrill,et al.  Foraging–vigilance trade-offs in a partially migratory population: comparing migrants and residents on a sympatric range , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[63]  David K. Skelly,et al.  EFFECT OF FOOD AND PREDATORS ON THE ACTIVITY OF FOUR LARVAL RANID FROGS , 2000 .

[64]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Titrating food and safety in a heterogeneous environment: when are the risky and safe patches of equal value? , 1995 .

[65]  K. Parker,et al.  Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk , 1984 .

[66]  C. Clark,et al.  Dynamic State Variable Models in Ecology , 2000 .

[67]  M. Holyoak,et al.  Habitat Patch Arrangement and Metapopulation Persistence of Predators and Prey , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[68]  A. Loison,et al.  Coupling scale-specific habitat selection and activity reveals sex-specific food/cover trade-offs in a large herbivore , 2015, Animal Behaviour.

[69]  Chris J. Johnson,et al.  Movement parameters of ungulates and scale‐specific responses to the environment , 2002 .

[70]  David J. Thompson,et al.  Patterns of movement and dispersal in an endangered damselfly and the consequences for its management , 2007 .

[71]  J. Emlen.  The Role of Time and Energy in Food Preference , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[72]  G. Chelazzi,et al.  A state-dependent model of activity patterns in homing limpets: balancing energy returns and mortality risks under constraints on digestion , 2000 .

[73]  Darcy R. Visscher,et al.  Scales of movement by elk (Cervus elaphus) in response to heterogeneity in forage resources and predation risk , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[74]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  MULTI-TASKING BY MAMMALIAN HERBIVORES: OVERLAPPING PROCESSES DURING FORAGING , 2004 .

[75]  B. Strickland,et al.  White-tailed deer forage production in managed and unmanaged pine stands and summer food plots in Mississippi , 2004 .

[76]  B. V. Horne,et al.  Influence of habitat on behavior of townsend's ground squirrels (Spermophilus townsendii) , 1998 .

[77]  Wayne M. Getz,et al.  The use of stochastic dynamic programming in optimal landscape reconstruction for metapopulations , 2003 .

[78]  Karin Frank,et al.  Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival – from model results to rules of thumb for landscape management , 1998, Landscape Ecology.

[79]  M. Price,et al.  Catch-up growth of yearling wapiti stags (cervus elaphus) , 1992 .

[80]  S. Morgan,et al.  Prey state alters trait‐mediated indirect interactions in rocky tide pools , 2016 .

[81]  Iain Douglas-Hamilton,et al.  The movement of African elephants in a human‐dominated land‐use mosaic , 2009 .

[82]  Stephen L. Webb,et al.  Hunting intensity alters movement behaviour of white-tailed deer , 2016 .

[83]  J. Forbey,et al.  Understanding tradeoffs between food and predation risks in a specialist mammalian herbivore , 2016, Wildlife Biology.

[84]  R. Shine,et al.  Compensating for a bad start: catch-up growth in juvenile lizards (Amphibolurus muricatus, Agamidae). , 2007, Journal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological genetics and physiology.

[85]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[86]  Theunis Piersma,et al.  Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. II. Patch choice and length of working day , 2005 .

[87]  Naiara Pinto,et al.  Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[88]  D. Miquelle.  Why don't bull moose eat during the rut? , 1990, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[89]  M. Main.  Reconciling competing ecological explanations for sexual segregation in ungulates. , 2008, Ecology.

[90]  T. Schoener.  Theory of Feeding Strategies , 1971 .

[91]  D. Fortin,et al.  Temporal dynamics in the foraging decisions of large herbivores , 2015 .

[92]  A. Sinclair,et al.  Causes and consequences of migration by large herbivores. , 1988, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[93]  Predation Risk as a Factor Affecting Sexual Segregation in Alpine Ibex , 2007 .

[94]  S. FitzGibbon,et al.  The importance of functional connectivity in the conservation of a ground-dwelling mammal in an urban Australian landscape , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[95]  Theunis Piersma,et al.  Foraging in a tidally structured environment by Red Knots (Calidris canutus): ideal, but not free. , 2006, Ecology.

[96]  Temporal variation in site fidelity: scale-dependent effects of forage abundance and predation risk in a non-migratory large herbivore , 2013, Oecologia.

[97]  M. Childress,et al.  Predation risk, gender and the group size effect: does elk vigilance depend upon the behaviour of conspecifics? , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[98]  B. Craig,et al.  The Effects of Matrix Structure on Movement Decisions of Meadow Voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) , 2007 .

[99]  K. Ruckstuhl,et al.  Sexual segregation in ungulates: a comparative test of three hypotheses , 2002, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[100]  Barney Luttbeg,et al.  The effects of variable predation risk on foraging and growth: less risk is not necessarily better. , 2011, Ecology.

[101]  T. Ricketts.  The Matrix Matters: Effective Isolation in Fragmented Landscapes , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[102]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  Corridors for Conservation: Integrating Pattern and Process , 2006 .

[103]  A Sih,et al.  Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? , 1980, Science.

[104]  L. Dill,et al.  A DETERMINATION OF THE ENERGETIC EQUIVALENCE OF THE RISK OF PREDATION , 1989 .

[105]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  The Effect of Landscape Heterogeneity on the Probability of Patch Colonization , 1996 .

[106]  P. Nonacs.  State dependent behavior and the Marginal Value Theorem , 2001 .

[107]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[108]  Silke Bauer,et al.  The consequences of climate-driven stop-over sites changes on migration schedules and fitness of Arctic geese. , 2008, The Journal of animal ecology.

[109]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Effects of Matrix Heterogeneity on Animal Dispersal: From Individual Behavior to Metapopulation‐Level Parameters , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[110]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Gap crossing by chipmunks: an experimental test of landscape connectivity , 2002 .

[111]  Darren J. Bender,et al.  MATRIX STRUCTURE OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPATCH MOVEMENT AND PATCH SIZE AND ISOLATION , 2005 .

[112]  Barney Luttbeg.  Re-examining the Causes and Meaning of the Risk Allocation Hypothesis , 2017, The American Naturalist.

[113]  K. Isvaran,et al.  Wild Ungulate Decision-Making and the Role of Tiny Refuges in Human-Dominated Landscapes , 2016, PloS one.

[114]  R. Corry,et al.  Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[115]  R. Crabtree,et al.  Sequential decision-making in a variable environment: modeling elk movement in Yellowstone National Park as a dynamic game. , 2007, Theoretical population biology.

[116]  Miska Luoto,et al.  An Empirical Test of a Diffusion Model: Predicting Clouded Apollo Movements in a Novel Environment , 2008, The American Naturalist.

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

[118]  P. Lundberg,et al.  Resource use, plant defenses, and optimal digestion in ruminants , 1993 .

[119]  R. Bowyer,et al.  SEXUAL SEGREGATION IN DIMORPHIC DEER: A NEW GASTROCENTRIC HYPOTHESIS , 2000 .

[120]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Assessing the Data Requirements of Spatially Explicit Dispersal Models , 1997 .

[121]  W. D. Robinson,et al.  Functional connectivity experiments reflect routine movement behavior of a tropical hummingbird species. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[122]  E. L. Kloppers,et al.  Predator-Resembling Aversive Conditioning for Managing Habituated Wildlife , 2005 .

[123]  S. Creel,et al.  Sex-specific behavioural responses of elk to spatial and temporal variation in the threat of wolf predation , 2007, Animal Behaviour.