A memory-based foraging tactic reveals an adaptive mechanism for restricted space use.

The restricted area of space used by most mobile animals is thought to result from fitness-rewarding decisions derived from gaining information about the environment. Yet, assessments of how animals deal with uncertainty using memory have been largely theoretical, and an empirically derived mechanism explaining restricted space use in animals is still lacking. Using a patch-to-patch movement analysis, we investigated predictions of how free-ranging bison (Bison bison) living in a meadow-forest matrix use memory to reduce uncertainty in energy intake rate. Results indicate that bison remembered pertinent information about location and quality of meadows, and they used this information to selectively move to meadows of higher profitability. Moreover, bison chose profitable meadows they had previously visited, and this choice was stronger after visiting a relatively poor quality meadow. Our work demonstrates a link between memory, energy gains and restricted space use while establishing a fitness-based integration of movement, cognitive and spatial ecology.

[1]  Rob Deardon,et al.  An empirically parameterized individual based model of animal movement, perception, and memory , 2013 .

[2]  E A Codling,et al.  Group navigation and the "many-wrongs principle" in models of animal movement. , 2007, Ecology.

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

[4]  L. Nadel.  The hippocampus and space revisited , 1991, Hippocampus.

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

[6]  Xulin Guo,et al.  Mechanisms of functional connectivity: the case of free-ranging bison in a forest landscape. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[7]  Danielle Sulikowski,et al.  Movement and memory: different cognitive strategies are used to search for resources with different natural distributions , 2011, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[8]  ANDREW T. HURLY,et al.  Spatial memory in rufous hummingbirds: memory for rewarded and non-rewarded sites , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  L. Devenport,et al.  Time-dependent averaging of foraging information in least chipmunks and golden-mantled ground squirrels , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  Daniel Fortin,et al.  Logging‐induced changes in habitat network connectivity shape behavioral interactions in the wolf–caribou–moose system , 2014 .

[11]  J. Nocedal,et al.  A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization , 1995, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[12]  Benjamin D. Dalziel,et al.  Fitting Probability Distributions to Animal Movement Trajectories: Using Artificial Neural Networks to Link Distance, Resources, and Memory , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[13]  Lars Chittka,et al.  Trade-off between travel distance and prioritization of high-reward sites in traplining bumblebees , 2011, Functional ecology.

[14]  Jacqui Frair,et al.  The attraction of the known: the importance of spatial familiarity in habitat selection in wapiti Cervus elaphus , 2009 .

[15]  Paul J Rathouz,et al.  Accounting for animal movement in estimation of resource selection functions: sampling and data analysis. , 2009, Ecology.

[16]  D. Stephens,et al.  Tracking a changing environment: optimal sampling, adaptive memory and overnight effects , 2012, Behavioural Processes.

[17]  Arild O. Gautestad.  Memory matters: influence from a cognitive map on animal space use. , 2011, Journal of theoretical biology.

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

[19]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  Spatial Graphs: Principles and Applications for Habitat Connectivity , 2007, Ecosystems.

[20]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  On systems of reference involved in spatial memory , 1997, Behavioural Processes.

[21]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  Spatial memory and animal movement. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[22]  R. W. Richards,et al.  Characteristics of spatial memory in cattle , 1989 .

[23]  John M. Fryxell,et al.  Forage Quality and Aggregation by Large Herbivores , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[24]  L. Mermet,et al.  The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions. , 2009, Ecology letters.

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

[26]  E. Laca,et al.  Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. , 1996 .

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

[28]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  MULTI-TASKING BY MAMMALIAN HERBIVORES: OVERLAPPING PROCESSES DURING FORAGING , 2004 .

[29]  L A Real,et al.  Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture , 1991, Science.

[30]  Ola Olsson,et al.  Bayes' theorem and its applications in animal behaviour , 2006 .

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

[32]  E. Laca.  Spatial memory and food searching mechanisms of cattle , 1998 .

[33]  Wayne D. Spencer,et al.  Home ranges and the value of spatial information , 2012 .

[34]  Daniel Fortin,et al.  Group-size-dependent association between food profitability, predation risk and distribution of free-ranging bison , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[35]  A. Houston,et al.  Optimal foraging and learning , 1985 .

[36]  P. Frankland,et al.  The organization of recent and remote memories , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

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

[39]  Daniel Fortin,et al.  Range fidelity: The missing link between caribou decline and habitat alteration? , 2010 .

[40]  Denis Boyer,et al.  Modelling the mobility of living organisms in heterogeneous landscapes: does memory improve foraging success? , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[41]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Predator-prey shell games: large-scale movement and its implications for decision-making by prey , 2002 .

[42]  Daniel Fortin,et al.  Searching behavior and use of sampling information by free-ranging bison (Bos bison) , 2003, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

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

[44]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. , 2011, Ecology.

[45]  Walter H. Piper,et al.  Making habitat selection more “familiar”: a review , 2011, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[46]  Sasha R. X. Dall,et al.  Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[47]  Radu V. Craiu,et al.  Inference Methods for the Conditional Logistic Regression Model with Longitudinal Data , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[48]  G. Pyke.  Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review , 1984 .