Improved foraging by switching between diffusion and advection: benefits from movement that depends on spatial context

Animals use different modes of movement at different times, in different locations, and on different scales. Incorporating such context dependence in mathematical models represents a substantial increase in complexity, but creates an opportunity to more fully integrate key biological features. Here, we consider the spatial dynamics of a population of foragers with two subunits. In one subunit, foragers move via diffusion (random search) whereas in the other, foragers move via advection (gradient-following search). Foragers switch back and forth between the subunits as functions of their spatial context (i.e., depending on whether they are inside or outside of a patch, or depending on whether or not they can detect a gradient in resource density). We consider a one-dimensional binary landscape of resource patches and non-habitat and gauge success in terms of how well the mobile foragers overlap with the distribution of resources. Actively switching between dispersal modes can sometimes greatly enhance this spatial overlap relative to the spatial overlap possible when foragers merely blend advection and diffusion modes at all times. Switching between movement modes is most beneficial when organism’s gradient-following abilities are weak compared to its overall capacity for movement, but switching can actually be quite detrimental for organisms that can rapidly follow resource gradients. An organism’s perceptual range plays a critical role in determining the conditions under which switching movement modes benefits versus disadvantages foragers as they seek out resources.

[1]  Lawrence F. Shampine,et al.  The MATLAB ODE Suite , 1997, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[2]  Yuan Lou,et al.  Evolutionarily Stable and Convergent Stable Strategies in Reaction–Diffusion Models for Conditional Dispersal , 2014, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[3]  A. M. Edwards,et al.  Revisiting Lévy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses, bumblebees and deer , 2007, Nature.

[4]  Eliezer Gurarie,et al.  What is the animal doing? Tools for exploring behavioural structure in animal movements. , 2016, The Journal of animal ecology.

[5]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Landscape-level perceptual abilities in white-footed mice : perceptual range and the detection of forested habitat , 1997 .

[6]  O. Ovaskainen,et al.  State-space models of individual animal movement. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  Yannis P Papastamatiou,et al.  Scales of orientation, directed walks and movement path structure in sharks. , 2011, The Journal of animal ecology.

[8]  A. Mogilner,et al.  A non-local model for a swarm , 1999 .

[9]  Pablo M. Vergara,et al.  Behavioral switching in Magellanic woodpeckers reveals perception of habitat quality at different spatial scales , 2018, Landscape Ecology.

[10]  J. F. Gilliam,et al.  A Diffusion‐Based Theory of Organism Dispersal in Heterogeneous Populations , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[11]  Brigitte Schoenemann,et al.  Discovery of some 400 million year-old sensory structures in the compound eyes of trilobites , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Eliezer Gurarie,et al.  Supplementary material from "The importance of individual variation in the dynamics of animal collective movements" , 2018 .

[13]  R. Tyson,et al.  Beyond diffusion: Modelling local and long-distance dispersal for organisms exhibiting intensive and extensive search modes. , 2011, Theoretical population biology.

[14]  P. Zollner Comparing the landscape level perceptual abilities of forest sciurids in fragmented agricultural landscapes* , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[15]  Nathaniel K. Newlands,et al.  Analysis of foraging movements of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus): individuals switch between two modes of search behaviour , 2004, Population Ecology.

[16]  Cristóbal López,et al.  Optimal search in interacting populations: Gaussian jumps versus Lévy flights. , 2014, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  Peter Leimgruber,et al.  Non‐Markovian maximum likelihood estimation of autocorrelated movement processes , 2014 .

[18]  Juan M. Morales,et al.  EXTRACTING MORE OUT OF RELOCATION DATA: BUILDING MOVEMENT MODELS AS MIXTURES OF RANDOM WALKS , 2004 .

[19]  Patrick A. Zollner,et al.  Using body size to predict perceptual range , 2002 .

[20]  Yuan Lou,et al.  Advection-mediated coexistence of competing species , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathematics.

[21]  Marcus Vinícius Vieira,et al.  Does land use affect perceptual range? Evidence from two marsupials of the Atlantic Forest , 2011 .

[22]  B. Marcotte Turbidity, arthropods and the evolution of perception: toward a new paradigm of marine phanerozoic diversity , 1999 .

[23]  Luděk Berec,et al.  Mixed encounters, limited perception and optimal foraging , 2000, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[24]  M. Moreau,et al.  Intermittent search strategies , 2011, 1104.0639.

[25]  V. Jansen,et al.  Variation in individual walking behavior creates the impression of a Lévy flight , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  John M. Fryxell,et al.  THE TEMPORAL SCALE OF FORAGING DECISIONS IN BISON , 2002 .

[27]  P. Moorcroft,et al.  Analytic steady-state space use patterns and rapid computations in mechanistic home range analysis , 2007, Journal of mathematical biology.

[28]  Michele Thums,et al.  Big data analyses reveal patterns and drivers of the movements of southern elephant seals , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[29]  Wolfgang Kiessling,et al.  Vision and the diversification of Phanerozoic marine invertebrates , 2012, Paleobiology.

[30]  Rebecca C. Tyson,et al.  First capture success in two dimensions: The search for prey by a random walk predator in a comprehensive space of random walks , 2016 .

[31]  J. Teilmann,et al.  How a simple adaptive foraging strategy can lead to emergent home ranges and increased food intake , 2013 .

[32]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Integrating individual search and navigation behaviors in mechanistic movement models , 2011, Theoretical Ecology.

[33]  Andy Reynolds,et al.  How many animals really do the Lévy walk? Comment. , 2008, Ecology.

[34]  Peter Leimgruber,et al.  From Fine-Scale Foraging to Home Ranges: A Semivariance Approach to Identifying Movement Modes across Spatiotemporal Scales , 2014, The American Naturalist.

[35]  C. Schmeiser,et al.  Global existence for chemotaxis with finite sampling radius , 2006 .

[36]  Roland Langrock,et al.  Flexible and practical modeling of animal telemetry data: hidden Markov models and extensions. , 2012, Ecology.

[37]  D. Haydon,et al.  Multiple movement modes by large herbivores at multiple spatiotemporal scales , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Michael J Plank,et al.  Evaluating random search strategies in three mammals from distinct feeding guilds. , 2016, The Journal of animal ecology.

[39]  Yuan Lou,et al.  Evolution of dispersal in spatial population models with multiple timescales , 2018, Journal of mathematical biology.

[40]  A. Ōkubo,et al.  MODELLING SOCIAL ANIMAL AGGREGATIONS , 1994 .

[41]  Sharon Bewick,et al.  Perceptual Ranges, Information Gathering, and Foraging Success in Dynamic Landscapes , 2017, The American Naturalist.

[42]  Brett T. McClintock,et al.  A general discrete‐time modeling framework for animal movement using multistate random walks , 2012 .

[43]  David Saltz,et al.  Forging at Different Spatial Scales: Dorcas Gazelles Foraging for Lilies in the Negev Desert , 1994 .

[44]  Martin Berzins,et al.  A Method for the Spatial Discretization of Parabolic Equations in One Space Variable , 1990, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[45]  Robert J. Jr. Fletcher,et al.  Signal detection theory clarifies the concept of perceptual range and its relevance to landscape connectivity , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[46]  Cristóbal López,et al.  Optimizing the search for resources by sharing information: Mongolian gazelles as a case study. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[47]  Chloe Bracis,et al.  Memory Effects on Movement Behavior in Animal Foraging , 2015, PloS one.

[48]  I. Couzin,et al.  Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[49]  J. F. Gilliam,et al.  MODELING DIFFUSIVE SPREAD IN A HETEROGENEOUS POPULATION: A MOVEMENT STUDY WITH STREAM FISH , 2000 .