Studying spatial interactions between sympatric populations of large herbivores: a null model approach

Sympatric populations of species with similar ecology are limited by competition for available resources. While quantifying niche overlap between species in interaction offers a useful description of coexistence patterns, the lack of correspondence between niche overlap and competition prevents any functional interpretation. Using an innovative approach for analysing spatial distributions of individuals from two sympatric species, we aim to fill the gap. We applied our models to data collected on sympatric females of roe deer and red deer. Using the null model approach commonly applied in community ecology, we tested in a first model for deviation from a random distribution of female roe deer in relation to female red deer. We took into account constraints generated by both the marked sedentary habits and habitat use (avoidance of mature forest) of roe deer in this null model. In a second null model, we removed the habitat constraints to avoid any lack of power of our tests. We then compared the overlap index calculated from roe deer and red deer locations with the distribution expected under each of these null models. As we failed to reject the null model in both cases, we tested a third null model simulating an identical distribution of roe deer and red deer home ranges and we rejected it. Our results show that the distribution of female roe deer does not depend on the distribution of female red deer, indicating an absence of competitive interactions between the deer species. This conclusion relies on the application of the null model approach, which provides a suitable way of performing a formal test of interspecific competition rooted in explicitly defined hypotheses, and could not have been reached using simple overlap indices as generally performed when assessing competitive interactions. We thus encourage scientists to apply this null model analysis to population ecology.

[1]  B. Krasnov,et al.  Aggregative structure is the rule in communities of fleas: null model analysis , 2011 .

[2]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Habitat use by female western roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): influence of resource availability on habitat selection in two contrasting years. , 2010 .

[3]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Are abundance indices derived from spotlight counts reliable to monitor red deer Cervus elaphus populations? , 2010 .

[4]  François Klein,et al.  High red deer density depresses body mass of roe deer fawns , 2010, Oecologia.

[5]  Jean-Michel Gaillard,et al.  What shapes intra‐specific variation in home range size? A case study of female roe deer , 2009 .

[6]  François Klein,et al.  Seasonal variation in diet composition and similarity of sympatric red deer Cervus elaphus and roe deer Capreolus capreolus , 2008 .

[7]  D. Allainé,et al.  Importance of movement constraints in habitat selection studies , 2008 .

[8]  Jean-Michel Gaillard,et al.  Roe deer Capreolus capreolus home-range sizes estimated from VHF and GPS data , 2008 .

[9]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Lifetime reproductive success and composition of the home range in a large herbivore. , 2007, Ecology.

[10]  Clément Calenge,et al.  The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals , 2006 .

[11]  Jean-Michel Gaillard,et al.  Ecological correlates of home‐range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland , 2005 .

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

[13]  O. Widmer The effects of hurricane Lothar on habitat use of roe deer , 2004 .

[14]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Rings, circles, and null-models for point pattern analysis in ecology , 2004 .

[15]  B. Georgii,et al.  Home range and activity patterns of male red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in the alps , 1983, Oecologia.

[16]  Perturbation analysis of competition and overlap in habitat utilization between Dipodomys ordii and Dipodomys merriami , 1975, Oecologia.

[17]  P. Sale Overlap in resource use, and interspecific competition , 1974, Oecologia.

[18]  R. Ricklefs A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity , 2004 .

[19]  Nathalie Pettorelli,et al.  AGE AND DENSITY MODIFY THE EFFECTS OF HABITAT QUALITY ON SURVIVAL AND MOVEMENTS OF ROE DEER , 2003 .

[20]  J. Kie,et al.  Niche partitioning among mule deer, elk, and cattle: Do stable isotopes reflect dietary niche? , 2003 .

[21]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Sex‐ and age‐dependent effects of population density on life history traits of red deer Cervus elaphus in a temperate forest , 2002 .

[22]  B. Johnson,et al.  TEMPOROSPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF ELK, MULE DEER, AND CATTLE: RESOURCE PARTITIONING AND COMPETITIVE DISPLACEMENT , 2002 .

[23]  H. Verheyden-Tixier,et al.  Variations of diet composition of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in Europe , 2001 .

[24]  Nicholas J. Gotelli,et al.  Research frontiers in null model analysis , 2001 .

[25]  N. Gotelli Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns , 2000 .

[26]  J. Latham Interspecific interactions of ungulates in European forests: an overview , 1999 .

[27]  M. Austin A silent clash of paradigms : some inconsistencies in community ecology , 1999 .

[28]  Stephen H. Roxburgh,et al.  The statistical validation of null models used in spatial association analyses , 1999 .

[29]  J. L. Hamann,et al.  Domaines vitaux diurnes et déplacements de cerfs mâles (Cervus elaphus) sur le secteur de La Petite Pierre (Bas-Rhin) , 1999 .

[30]  D. Frank UNGULATE REGULATION OF ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK : DIRECT AND FEEDBACK EFFECTS , 1998 .

[31]  F. Klein,et al.  Domaine vital diurne et déplacements de biches (Cervus elaphus) sur le secteur de La Petite Pierre (Bas-Rhin) , 1997 .

[32]  N. Gotelli,et al.  NULL MODELS IN ECOLOGY , 1996 .

[33]  J. Wilson Null models for assembly rules: the Jack Horner effect is more insidious than the Narcissus effect , 1995 .

[34]  Europe.,et al.  In Europe … , 1994, Current History.

[35]  C. Patrick Doncaster,et al.  Non-parametric estimates of interaction from radio-tracking data , 1990 .

[36]  B. Worton Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies , 1989 .

[37]  D. Catt,et al.  Home range use and habitat selection by Red deer (Cerrus elaphus) in a Sitka spruce plantation as determined by radio‐tracking , 1987 .

[38]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence , 1984 .

[39]  David W. Winkler,et al.  20. A Null Model for Null Models in Biogeography , 1984 .

[40]  T. Schoener The Controversy over Interspecific Competition , 1982 .

[41]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  The Assembly of Species Communities: Chance or Competition? , 1979 .

[42]  S. Hurlbert The Measurement of Niche Overlap and Some Relatives , 1978 .

[43]  Thomas W. Schoener,et al.  Resource Partitioning in Ecological Communities , 1974, Science.

[44]  E. Pianka,et al.  Niche overlap and diffuse competition. , 1974, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[45]  V. P. W. Lowe,et al.  The Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) Population at Kalo and the Factors Regulating Its Size. , 1973 .

[46]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  On the Measurement of Niche Breadth and Overlap. , 1971, Ecology.

[47]  R. Hoffmann,et al.  Habitat Overlap and Competitive Exclusion in Voles (Microtus) , 1968 .

[48]  R. Macarthur,et al.  COMPETITION, HABITAT SELECTION, AND CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT IN A PATCHY ENVIRONMENT. , 1964, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  L. Birch,et al.  The Meanings of Competition , 1957, The American Naturalist.