Predicting functional responses in agro-ecosystems from animal movement data to improve management of invasive pests.

Functional responses describe how changing resource availability affects consumer resource use, thus providing a mechanistic approach to prediction of the invasibility and potential damage of invasive alien species (IAS). However, functional responses can be context-dependent, varying with resource characteristics and availability, consumer attributes, and environmental variables. Identifying context-dependencies can allow invasion and damage risk to be predicted across different ecoregions. Understanding how ecological factors shape the functional response in agro-ecosystems can improve predictions of hotspots of highest impact and inform strategies to mitigate damage across locations with varying crop types and availability. We linked heterogeneous movement data across different agro-ecosystems to predict ecologically-driven variability in the functional responses. We applied our approach to wild pigs (Sus scrofa), one of the most successful and detrimental IAS worldwide where agricultural resource depredation is an important driver of spread and establishment. We used continental-scale movement data within agro-ecosystems to quantify the functional response of agricultural resources relative to availability of crops and natural forage. We hypothesized that wild pigs would selectively use crops more often when natural forage resources were low. We also examined how individual attributes such as sex, crop type, and resource stimulus such as distance to crops altered the magnitude of the functional response. There was a strong agricultural functional response where crop use was an accelerating function of crop availability at low density (Type III) and was highly context-dependent. As hypothesized, there was a reduced response of crop use with increasing crop availability when non-agricultural resources were more available, emphasizing that crop damage levels are likely to be highly heterogeneous depending on surrounding natural resources and temporal availability of crops. We found significant effects of crop type and sex - with males spending 20% more time and visiting crops 58% more often than females, and both sexes showing different functional responses depending on crop type. Our application demonstrates how commonly collected animal movement data can be used to understand context-dependencies in resource use to improve our understanding of pest foraging behavior, with implications for prioritizing spatio-temporal hotspots of potential economic loss in agro-ecosystems.

[1]  Jonah Gabry,et al.  R-squared for Bayesian Regression Models , 2019, The American Statistician.

[2]  David W. Wolfson,et al.  Accounting for heterogeneous invasion rates reveals management impacts on the spatial expansion of an invasive species , 2019, Ecosphere.

[3]  Nathan P. Snow,et al.  Evaluation of movement behaviors to inform toxic baiting strategies for invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa). , 2018, Pest management science.

[4]  Jason B Terry,et al.  Prevalence and amount of feral swine damage to three row crops at planting , 2018, Crop Protection.

[5]  Jessica L. Tegt,et al.  Seasonal variation in preference dictates space use in an invasive generalist , 2018, PloS one.

[6]  Connor J. Burgin,et al.  How many species of mammals are there? , 2018, Journal of Mammalogy.

[7]  M. A. Tabak,et al.  Abiotic and biotic influences on home-range size of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) , 2018, Journal of Mammalogy.

[8]  Nathan P. Snow,et al.  Interpreting and predicting the spread of invasive wild pigs , 2017 .

[9]  Nathan P. Snow,et al.  Attractants for wild pigs: current use, availability, needs, and future potential , 2017, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[10]  Benjamin Rosenbaum,et al.  Fitting functional responses: Direct parameter estimation by simulating differential equations , 2017, bioRxiv.

[11]  J. Beasley,et al.  Ecology and Management of Terrestrial Vertebrate Invasive Species in the United States , 2017 .

[12]  K. Vercauteren,et al.  Quantifying drivers of wild pig movement across multiple spatial and temporal scales , 2017, Movement ecology.

[13]  Nathan P. Snow,et al.  Development of toxic bait to control invasive wild pigs and reduce damage , 2017 .

[14]  Jesse S. Lewis,et al.  Biotic and abiotic factors predicting the global distribution and population density of an invasive large mammal , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[15]  P. Landi,et al.  Functional responses can’t unify invasion ecology , 2017, Biological Invasions.

[16]  Ryan Wasserman,et al.  Functional responses can unify invasion ecology , 2017, Biological Invasions.

[17]  Brett T. McClintock,et al.  Animal Movement: Statistical Models for Telemetry Data , 2017 .

[18]  C. Slootmaker,et al.  Economic estimates of feral swine damage and control in 11 US states , 2016 .

[19]  Adrien Michez,et al.  Use of unmanned aerial system to assess wildlife (Sus scrofa) damage to crops (Zea mays) , 2016 .

[20]  Derek E. Lee,et al.  Foraging habitat selection by California spotted owls after fire , 2016 .

[21]  Jacob S. Ivan,et al.  A functional model for characterizing long‐distance movement behaviour , 2016 .

[22]  Mevin B. Hooten,et al.  Basis Function Models for Animal Movement , 2016, 1601.05408.

[23]  Josep Peñuelas,et al.  Temporal trends in the enhanced vegetation index and spring weather predict seed production in Mediterranean oaks , 2015, Plant Ecology.

[24]  M. J. Hatcher,et al.  Predicting invasive species impacts: a community module functional response approach reveals context dependencies , 2014, The Journal of animal ecology.

[25]  D. Maillard,et al.  Diet of the Wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) inhabiting the Montpellier garrigue , 2014 .

[26]  R. Brook,et al.  Feral wild boar distribution and perceptions of risk on the central Canadian prairies , 2014 .

[27]  M. Lutman,et al.  Consequences Associated with the Recent Range Expansion of Nonnative Feral Swine , 2014 .

[28]  S. Ballari,et al.  A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges , 2014 .

[29]  Anthony Ricciardi,et al.  Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach , 2014, Biological Invasions.

[30]  Mevin B Hooten,et al.  Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use-availability design. , 2013, Ecology.

[31]  A. Amici,et al.  Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): the “refuge effect” , 2012, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[32]  S. Ballari,et al.  Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review , 2012, Biological Invasions.

[33]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology , 2011 .

[34]  R. López‐Lozano,et al.  An increase in canopy cover leads to masting in Quercusilex , 2010, Trees.

[35]  I. L. Brisbin,et al.  WILD PIGS: BIOLOGY, DAMAGE, CONTROL TECHINQUES AND MANAGEMENT , 2009 .

[36]  M. S. Mitchell,et al.  Territoriality of Feral Pigs in a Highly Persecuted Population on Fort Benning, Georgia , 2009 .

[37]  Holger Dettki,et al.  Habitat use and spatial patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa (L.): agricultural fields and edges , 2009, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[38]  M. Roth,et al.  Commuting, shifting or remaining?: different spatial utilisation patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest and field crops during summer. , 2009 .

[39]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. , 2009, Ecology.

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

[41]  V. Jansen,et al.  How population dynamics shape the functional response in a one-predator-two-prey system. , 2007, Ecology.

[42]  T. Ruf,et al.  Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers , 2005 .

[43]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[44]  R. Byrne,et al.  Foraging behaviour in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa): remembering and prioritizing food sites of different value , 2005, Animal Cognition.

[45]  Stephen P. Ellner,et al.  SCALING UP ANIMAL MOVEMENTS IN HETEROGENEOUS LANDSCAPES: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEHAVIOR , 2002 .

[46]  W. M. Lonsdale,et al.  GLOBAL PATTERNS OF PLANT INVASIONS AND THE CONCEPT OF INVASIBILITY , 1999 .

[47]  R. J. Putman,et al.  Impact of deer in lowland Britain on agriculture, forestry and conservation habitats. , 1998 .

[48]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES IN HABITAT USE: AVAILABILITY INFLUENCES RELATIVE USE IN TRADE-OFF SITUATIONS , 1998 .

[49]  B. Manly,et al.  Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. , 1994 .

[50]  Nicholas J. Aebischer,et al.  Compositional Analysis of Habitat Use From Animal Radio-Tracking Data , 1993 .

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

[52]  Thomas Caraco,et al.  ON FORAGING TIME ALLOCATION IN A STOCHASTIC ENVIRONMENT , 1980 .

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

[54]  William W. Murdoch,et al.  Switching, Functional Response, and Stability in Predator-Prey Systems , 1975, The American Naturalist.

[55]  C. S. Holling The Components of Predation as Revealed by a Study of Small-Mammal Predation of the European Pine Sawfly , 1959, The Canadian Entomologist.

[56]  D. Pimental ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF VERTEBRATE SPECIES INVASIONS INTO THE UNITED STATES , 2007 .

[57]  P. Vitousek,et al.  INTRODUCED SPECIES: A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL CHANGE , 1997 .

[58]  W. E. Pinchak,et al.  Wildlife Damage Management , Internet Center for April 1995 FERAL HOGS IN THE ROLLING PLAINS OF TEXAS : PERSPECTIVES , PROBLEMS , AND POTENTIAL , 2017 .

[59]  Robert M. Timm,et al.  Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage , 1985 .

[60]  W. Murdoch,et al.  Predation and Population Stability , 1975 .