Movement is the glue connecting home ranges and habitat selection.

Animal space use has been studied by focusing either on geographic (e.g. home ranges, species' distribution) or on environmental (e.g. habitat use and selection) space. However, all patterns of space use emerge from individual movements, which are the primary means by which animals change their environment. Individuals increase their use of a given area by adjusting two key movement components: the duration of their visit and/or the frequency of revisits. Thus, in spatially heterogeneous environments, animals exploit known, high-quality resource areas by increasing their residence time (RT) in and/or decreasing their time to return (TtoR) to these areas. We expected that spatial variation in these two movement properties should lead to observed patterns of space use in both geographic and environmental spaces. We derived a set of nine predictions linking spatial distribution of movement properties to emerging space-use patterns. We predicted that, at a given scale, high variation in RT and TtoR among habitats leads to strong habitat selection and that long RT and short TtoR result in a small home range size. We tested these predictions using moose (Alces alces) GPS tracking data. We first modelled the relationship between landscape characteristics and movement properties. Then, we investigated how the spatial distribution of predicted movement properties (i.e. spatial autocorrelation, mean, and variance of RT and TtoR) influences home range size and hierarchical habitat selection. In landscapes with high spatial autocorrelation of RT and TtoR, a high variation in both RT and TtoR occurred in home ranges. As expected, home range location was highly selective in such landscapes (i.e. second-order habitat selection); RT was higher and TtoR lower within the selected home range than outside, and moose home ranges were small. Within home ranges, a higher variation in both RT and TtoR was associated with higher selectivity among habitat types (i.e. third-order habitat selection). Our findings show how patterns of geographic and environmental space use correspond to the two sides of a coin, linked by movement responses of individuals to environmental heterogeneity. By demonstrating the potential to assess the consequences of altering RT or TtoR (e.g. through human disturbance or climatic changes) on home range size and habitat selection, our work sets the basis for new theoretical and methodological advances in movement ecology.

[1]  Mark S Boyce,et al.  Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. , 2013, The Journal of animal ecology.

[2]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Selecting Habitat to Survive: The Impact of Road Density on Survival in a Large Carnivore , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  Nils Bunnefeld,et al.  Understanding scales of movement: animals ride waves and ripples of environmental change. , 2013, The Journal of animal ecology.

[4]  Darcy R. Visscher,et al.  Inferring behavioural mechanisms in habitat selection studies getting the null‐hypothesis right for functional and familiarity responses , 2013 .

[5]  P. Moorcroft Mechanistic approaches to understanding and predicting mammalian space use: recent advances, future directions , 2012 .

[6]  Jennifer A. Miller Species distribution models , 2012 .

[7]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  Beyond the Utilization Distribution: Identifying home range areas that are intensively exploited or repeatedly visited , 2012 .

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

[9]  B. Sæther,et al.  Habitat quality influences population distribution, individual space use and functional responses in habitat selection by a large herbivore , 2011, Oecologia.

[10]  C. Dussault,et al.  Inference from habitat-selection analysis depends on foraging strategies. , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.

[11]  I. Herfindal,et al.  Screening Global Positioning System Location Data for Errors Using Animal Movement Characteristics , 2010 .

[12]  Darcy R. Visscher,et al.  Memory keeps you at home: a mechanistic model for home range emergence , 2009 .

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

[14]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  Animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: identifying profitable places and homogeneous movement bouts. , 2008, Ecology.

[15]  Edzer J. Pebesma,et al.  Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R - Second Edition , 2008, Use R!.

[16]  K. Kovacs,et al.  A novel method for quantifying habitat selection and predicting habitat use , 2008 .

[17]  J. Fryxell,et al.  Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[18]  William F. Fagan,et al.  Search and navigation in dynamic environments – from individual behaviors to population distributions , 2008 .

[19]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  When to Slow Down: Elk Residency Rates on a Heterogeneous Landscape , 2008 .

[20]  Paul R Moorcroft,et al.  Mechanistic home range models and resource selection analysis: a reconciliation and unification. , 2006, Ecology.

[21]  E. Silverman,et al.  Social cues facilitate habitat selection: American redstarts establish breeding territories in response to song , 2006, Biology Letters.

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

[23]  M. Rogers,et al.  Habitat Quality and Range Use of White-Headed Langurs in Fusui, China , 2005, Folia Primatologica.

[24]  M. Boyce,et al.  WOLVES INFLUENCE ELK MOVEMENTS: BEHAVIOR SHAPES A TROPHIC CASCADE IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK , 2005 .

[25]  Arild O. Gautestad,et al.  Intrinsic Scaling Complexity in Animal Dispersion and Abundance , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[26]  Michael S. Mitchell,et al.  A mechanistic home range model for optimal use of spatially distributed resources , 2004 .

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

[28]  Torkild Tveraa,et al.  USING FIRST‐PASSAGE TIME IN THE ANALYSIS OF AREA‐RESTRICTED SEARCH AND HABITAT SELECTION , 2003 .

[29]  M. Boyce,et al.  Evaluating resource selection functions , 2002 .

[30]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model , 2000 .

[31]  F. Messier,et al.  Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: its relationship to limiting factors , 2000 .

[32]  J. A. Schaefer,et al.  Caribou movement as a correlated random walk , 2000, Oecologia.

[33]  John D. C. Linnell,et al.  Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid : the roe deer , 1996 .

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

[35]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  Distinguishing between elementary orientation mechanisms by means of path analysis , 1992, Animal Behaviour.

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

[37]  R. Whittaker Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California , 1960 .

[38]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[39]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  Modeling animal movement with diffusion , 2009 .

[40]  P. Moorcroft,et al.  Mechanistic home range analysis , 2006 .

[41]  Robert A. Gitzen,et al.  Analysis of Animal Space Use and Movements , 2001 .