How range residency and long-range perception change encounter rates

Encounter rates link movement strategies to intra- and inter-specific interactions, and therefore translate individual movement behavior into higher-level ecological processes. Indeed, a large body of interacting population theory rests on the law of mass action, which can be derived from assumptions of Brownian motion in an enclosed container with exclusively local perception. These assumptions imply completely uniform space use, individual home ranges equivalent to the population range, and encounter dependent on movement paths actually crossing. Mounting empirical evidence, however, suggests that animals use space non-uniformly, occupy home ranges substantially smaller than the population range, and are often capable of nonlocal perception. Here, we explore how these empirically supported behaviors change pairwise encounter rates. Specifically, we derive novel analytical expressions for encounter rates under Ornstein-Uhlenbeck motion, which features non-uniform space use and allows individual home ranges to differ from the population range. We compare OU-based encounter predictions to those of Reflected Brownian Motion, from which the law of mass action can be derived. For both models, we further explore how the interplay between the scale of perception and home range size affects encounter rates. We find that neglecting realistic movement and perceptual behaviors can systematically bias encounter rate predictions.

[1]  J. O’Dwyer Beyond an ecological ideal gas law , 2019, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[2]  Andrew M. Hein,et al.  Information limitation and the dynamics of coupled ecological systems , 2019, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[3]  Orr Spiegel,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation , 2019, Ecological Monographs.

[4]  Justine L Atkins,et al.  Cascading impacts of large-carnivore extirpation in an African ecosystem , 2019, Science.

[5]  E. Brigatti,et al.  Lévy like patterns in the small-scale movements of marsupials in an unfamiliar and risky environment , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[6]  R. Martínez-García,et al.  Spatial eco-evolutionary feedbacks mediate coexistence in prey-predator systems , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[7]  Kevin Winner,et al.  Statistical inference for home range overlap , 2018, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[8]  P. Pellikka,et al.  A call for viewshed ecology: Advancing our understanding of the ecology of information through viewshed analysis , 2017 .

[9]  Theresa Burt de Perera,et al.  Sensory influence on navigation in the weakly electric fish Gnathonemus petersii , 2017, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  Scott A. McKinley,et al.  Resource-driven encounters among consumers and implications for the spread of infectious disease , 2017, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[11]  Daniel Sheldon,et al.  Kálmán filters for continuous-time movement models , 2017, Ecol. Informatics.

[12]  Christen H. Fleming,et al.  A new kernel density estimator for accurate home‐range and species‐range area estimation , 2017 .

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

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

[15]  Luis F. Gordillo,et al.  Mass action in two-sex population models: encounters, mating encounters and the associated numerical correction , 2017 .

[16]  Justin M. Calabrese,et al.  Online games: a novel approach to explore how partial information influences human random searches , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[17]  Greg A Breed,et al.  Predicting animal home-range structure and transitions using a multistate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck biased random walk. , 2017, Ecology.

[18]  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 .

[19]  Matthieu Barbier,et al.  The Spatial Dynamics of Predators and the Benefits and Costs of Sharing Information , 2016, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[20]  R. Kays,et al.  Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet , 2015, Science.

[21]  C H Fleming,et al.  Rigorous home range estimation with movement data: a new autocorrelated kernel density estimator. , 2015, Ecology.

[22]  J. F. Benson,et al.  Spatial overlap, proximity, and habitat use of individual wolves within the same packs , 2015 .

[23]  G. Pyke Understanding movements of organisms: it's time to abandon the Lévy foraging hypothesis , 2015 .

[24]  F. Vázquez,et al.  Optimal recruitment strategies for groups of interacting walkers with leaders. , 2014, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[25]  Frederic Bartumeus,et al.  Stochastic Optimal Foraging: Tuning Intensive and Extensive Dynamics in Random Searches , 2014, PloS one.

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

[27]  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.

[28]  M. Lewis,et al.  A unifying framework for quantifying the nature of animal interactions , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

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

[30]  Andrew M. Hein,et al.  Sensory Information and Encounter Rates of Interacting Species , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[31]  S. Levin,et al.  Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Modern Perspectives , 2013 .

[32]  F. Barraquand,et al.  Scaling up predator–prey dynamics using spatial moment equations , 2013 .

[33]  P. Turchin Complex Population Dynamics: A Theoretical/Empirical Synthesis , 2013 .

[34]  Mark A. Lewis,et al.  Mechanistic Home Range Analysis. (MPB-43) , 2013 .

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

[36]  Justin P. Coon,et al.  An Approximation of the First Order Marcum Q-Function with Application to Network Connectivity Analysis , 2012, IEEE Communications Letters.

[37]  Luca Giuggioli,et al.  Encounter times in overlapping domains: application to epidemic spread in a population of territorial animals. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[38]  Eliezer Gurarie,et al.  Towards a general formalization of encounter rates in ecology , 2013, Theoretical Ecology.

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

[40]  Eliezer Gurarie,et al.  Characteristic Spatial and Temporal Scales Unify Models of Animal Movement , 2011, The American Naturalist.

[41]  A. Dieker Reflected Brownian Motion , 2011 .

[42]  J. Prevedello,et al.  Movement behaviour within and beyond perceptual ranges in three small mammals: effects of matrix type and body mass. , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.

[43]  Håkan Sand,et al.  Building a mechanistic understanding of predation with GPS-based movement data , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[44]  Jacqueline L. Frair,et al.  Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  F. Cagnacci,et al.  Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[46]  Francesca Cagnacci,et al.  The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology? , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[47]  H. Olff,et al.  How well do food distributions predict spatial distributions of shorebirds with different degrees of self-organization? , 2010, The Journal of animal ecology.

[48]  F. D. L. Torre,et al.  Designing a Metric for the Difference between Gaussian Densities , 2010 .

[49]  C. Hawkes,et al.  Linking movement behaviour, dispersal and population processes: is individual variation a key? , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[50]  M. Lewis,et al.  First Passage Time Analysis of Animal Movement and Insights into the Functional Response , 2009, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

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

[52]  J. Calabrese,et al.  Reproductive asynchrony in natural butterfly populations and its consequences for female matelessness. , 2008, The Journal of animal ecology.

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

[54]  André W. Visser,et al.  Lagrangian modelling of plankton motion: From deceptively simple random walks to Fokker–Planck and back again , 2008 .

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

[56]  J. Hutchinson,et al.  Use, misuse and extensions of “ideal gas” models of animal encounter , 2007, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[57]  John Fieberg,et al.  Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. , 2007, Ecology.

[58]  André W. Visser,et al.  Plankton motility patterns and encounter rates , 2006, Oecologia.

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

[60]  B. Godley,et al.  Satellite Tracking and Analysis Tool (STAT): an integrated system for archiving, analyzing and mapping animal tracking data , 2005 .

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

[62]  Mark Hebblewhite,et al.  Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf /elk predator /prey system , 2005 .

[63]  R. García-Pelayo Distribution of distance in the spheroid , 2005 .

[64]  Bruce A. Pond,et al.  Allowing for redundancy and environmental effects in estimates of home range utilization distributions , 2005 .

[65]  Patrick A. Zollner,et al.  Comparing the landscape level perceptual abilities of forest sciurids in fragmented agricultural landscapes* , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[66]  Frederic Bartumeus,et al.  Erratum: Optimizing the Encounter Rate in Biological Interactions: Lévy versus Brownian Strategies [Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 097901 (2002)] , 2002 .

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

[68]  F Bartumeus,et al.  Optimizing the encounter rate in biological interactions: Lévy versus Brownian strategies. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[69]  Rick Durrett,et al.  Stochastic Spatial Models , 1999, SIAM Rev..

[70]  Paul G. Blackwell,et al.  Random diffusion models for animal movement , 1997 .

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

[72]  Alan A. Berryman,et al.  The Orgins and Evolution of Predator‐Prey Theory , 1992 .

[73]  Stephen Harris,et al.  Home‐range analysis using radio‐tracking data–a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals , 1990 .

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

[75]  B. J. Worton,et al.  A review of models of home range for animal movement , 1987 .

[76]  J. Harrison,et al.  The Stationary Distribution of Reflected Brownian Motion in a Planar Region , 1985 .

[77]  W. Bowen Home Range and Spatial Organization of Coyotes in Jasper National Park, Alberta , 1982 .

[78]  K. Dixon,et al.  Harmonic mean measure of animal activity areas , 1980 .

[79]  J. Gerritsen,et al.  Encounter Probabilities and Community Structure in Zooplankton: a Mathematical Model , 1977 .

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

[81]  R. Jennrich,et al.  Measurement of non-circular home range. , 1969, Journal of theoretical biology.

[82]  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.

[83]  Morikazu Toda On the Theory of the Brownian Motion , 1958 .

[84]  J. Mosimann THE EVOLUTIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF RARE MATINGS IN ANIMAL POPULATIONS , 1958 .

[85]  Eugene P. Odum,et al.  Measurement of territory and home range size in birds , 1955 .

[86]  W. H. Burt Territoriality and Home Range Concepts as Applied to Mammals , 1943 .

[87]  HighWire Press Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing papers of a mathematical and physical character , 1934 .

[88]  G. Uhlenbeck,et al.  On the Theory of the Brownian Motion , 1930 .

[89]  W. O. Kermack,et al.  A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics , 1927 .

[90]  A. J. Lotka Elements of Physical Biology. , 1925, Nature.

[91]  P. Verhulst Notice sur la loi que la population pursuit dans son accroissement , 1838 .