AN INDIVIDUAL‐BASED MODEL FOR TRADITIONAL FORAGING BEHAVIOR: INVESTIGATING EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FLUCTUATION

Abstract We present an individual‐based model to simulate the evolution of traditional foraging strategies in a fluctuating environment. The parameters and procedures are based on observed behavior of barnacle geese, Branta leucopsis, during spring staging off the coast of Helgeland, Norway. Within a temporally and spatially heterogeneous environment, goose movement is modeled according to state‐dependent site selection decisions that maximize food intake. The aim of each individual is to optimize fitness (survival and reproduction) by gaining enough food (energy reserves) during 3 weeks of foraging to meet a threshold of energy necessary for successful reproduction. The geese return to the same islands each year and on a daily basis choose unoccupied sites according to their rank in the population‐structured dominance hierarchy, memories of previously visited sites (tradition), past reproductive success, inherited genetic influence towards site faithfulness and/or site quality, and knowledge of the available biomass density. It is assumed that with each subsequent return to a specific location, increased familiarity of the area will benefit an individual through greater food acquisition by more efficient foraging practices. In the event of variable environmental conditions, geese are faced with a critical decision to return to previously visited sites or abandon tradition to explore for something better. It is shown that habitat quality plays an integral role in population dynamics. Beyond the scope of this paper, the evolution of foraging strategies that directly affect reproductive potential is shown to inevitably determine the resilience of the population over time ( Kanarek [2006] ). Further experiments are required for detailed results and analysis of specific circumstances that provoke the adaptation of certain behaviors. In general, this modeling approach has the potential to reveal significant insight into the emergence of stable responses to environmental disturbance.

[1]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[2]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[3]  G. Holton.  Sociobiology: the new synthesis? , 1977, Newsletter on science, technology & human values.

[4]  R. Lewontin.  ‘The Selfish Gene’ , 1977, Nature.

[5]  J. Krebs,et al.  Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach , 1978 .

[6]  J. Krebs,et al.  An introduction to behavioural ecology , 1981 .

[7]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Aggregation and the `ideal free ` distribution , 1983 .

[8]  J. M. Black,et al.  Factors affecting the survival of barnacle geese on migration from the breeding grounds , 1989 .

[9]  M. Owen,et al.  FORAGING BEHAVIOR AND SITE SELECTION OF BARNACLE GEESE BRANTA-LEUCOPSIS IN A TRADITIONAL AND NEWLY COLONIZED SPRING STAGING HABITAT , 1991 .

[10]  J. M. Black,et al.  Mate-selection behaviour and sampling strategies in geese , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  P. Dolman,et al.  Combining behaviour and population dynamics with applications for predicting consequences of habitat loss , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  J. M. Black,et al.  Reproductive Performance and Assortative Pairing in Relation to Age in Barnacle Geese , 1995 .

[13]  R. Clarke,et al.  Population dynamics: predicting the consequences of habitat change at the continental scale , 1996 .

[14]  I. Nisbet,et al.  Partnerships in Birds: The Study of Monogamy , 1997 .

[15]  J. M. Black,et al.  The spring range of barnacle geese Branta leucopsis in relation to changes in land management and climate , 1998 .

[16]  J. M. Black,et al.  Food intake, body reserves and reproductive success of barnacle geese Branta leucopsis staging in different habitats , 1998 .

[17]  J. M. Black,et al.  From individual feeding performance to predicting population dynamics in barnacle geese , 1998 .

[18]  Richard A. Stillman,et al.  Individual variation in the competitive ability of interference‐prone foragers: the relative importance of foraging efficiency and susceptibility to interference , 1999 .

[19]  J. Marcus Rowcliffe,et al.  The functional and aggregative responses of a herbivore: underlying mechanisms and the spatial implications for plant depletion , 1999 .

[20]  E. Jablonka,et al.  Animal Traditions: Behavioural Inheritance in Evolution , 2000 .

[21]  Alasdair I. Houston,et al.  Spatially explicit, individual-based, behavioural models of the annual cycle of two migratory goose populations , 2000 .

[22]  Steven F. Railsback,et al.  GETTING “RESULTS”: THE PATTERN‐ORIENTED APPROACH TO ANALYZING NATURAL SYSTEMS WITH INDIVIDUAL‐BASED MODELS , 2001 .

[23]  Jouke Prop,et al.  Travel schedules to the high arctic: barnacle geese trade‐off the timing of migration with accumulation of fat deposits , 2003 .

[24]  E. Cooch,et al.  Environmental change and the cost of philopatry: an example in the lesser snow goose , 1993, Oecologia.

[25]  Kenneth A. Schmidt,et al.  Site fidelity in temporally correlated environments enhances population persistence , 2004 .

[26]  Len Thomas,et al.  Metapopulation consequences of site fidelity for colonially breeding mammals and birds , 2005 .

[27]  Jouke Prop,et al.  Wild goose dilemmas : population consequences of individual decisions in Barnacle geese , 2007 .

[28]  G. Huse.  Individual‐based Modeling and Ecology , 2008 .