Energy benefits and emergent space use patterns of an empirically parameterized model of memory‐based patch selection

Many species frequently return to previously visited foraging sites. This bias towards familiar areas suggests that remembering information from past experience is beneficial. Such a memory-based foraging strategy has also been hypothesized to give rise to restricted space use (i.e. a home range). Nonetheless, the benefits of empirically derived memory-based foraging tactics and the extent to which they give rise to restricted space use patterns are still relatively unknown. Using a combination of stochastic agent-based simulations and deterministic integro-difference equations, we developed an adaptive link (based on energy gains as a foraging currency) between memory-based patch selection and its resulting spatial distribution. We used a memory-based foraging model developed and parameterized with patch selection data of free-ranging bison Bison bison in Prince Albert National Park, Canada. Relative to random use of food patches, simulated foragers using both spatial and attribute memory are more efficient, particularly in landscapes with clumped resources. However, a certain amount of random patch use is necessary to avoid frequent returns to relatively poor-quality patches, or avoid being caught in a relatively poor quality area of the landscape. Notably, in landscapes with clumped resources, simulated foragers that kept a reference point of the quality of recently visited patches, and returned to previously visited patches when local patch quality was poorer than the reference point, experienced higher energy gains compared to random patch use. Furthermore, the model of memory-based foraging resulted in restricted space use in simulated landscapes and replicated the restricted space use observed in free-ranging bison reasonably well. Our work demonstrates the adaptive value of spatial and attribute memory in heterogeneous landscapes, and how home ranges can be a byproduct of non-omniscient foragers using past experience to minimize temporal variation in energy gains.

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

[2]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  How Memory-Based Movement Leads to Nonterritorial Spatial Segregation , 2015, The American Naturalist.

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

[4]  Edward A. Codling,et al.  Random walk models in biology , 2008, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[5]  D. Fortin,et al.  Bison distribution under conflicting foraging strategies: site fidelity vs. energy maximization. , 2015, Ecology.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  M. Lewis,et al.  Home range formation in wolves due to scent marking , 2002, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[9]  R. Hudson,et al.  Foraging Ecology of Bison in Aspen Boreal Habitats , 1987 .

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

[11]  J. Rieser,et al.  Bayesian integration of spatial information. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

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

[13]  Sheng-You Huang,et al.  Random walk with memory enhancement and decay. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[14]  A. Louisa,et al.  コロイド混合体における有効力 空乏引力から集積斥力へ | 文献情報 | J-GLOBAL 科学技術総合リンクセンター , 2002 .

[15]  Wei Zhang,et al.  “True” self-attracting walk , 2001 .

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

[17]  Jonathan R. Potts,et al.  How do animal territories form and change? Lessons from 20 years of mechanistic modelling , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

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

[20]  S. L. Lima.  Sampling behavior of starlings foraging in simple patchy environments , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

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

[22]  V. V. Krishnan,et al.  A Learning-Based Model of Territory Establishment , 1999, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[23]  William E. Grant,et al.  AI modelling of animal movements in a heterogeneous habitat , 1989 .

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

[25]  Daniel Fortin,et al.  Optimal searching behaviour: the value of sampling information , 2002 .

[26]  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.

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

[28]  Alasdair I. Houston,et al.  Risk-sensitive foraging: A review of the theory , 1992 .

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

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

[31]  Janina Maier.  On The Move How And Why Animals Travel In Groups , 2016 .

[32]  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.

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

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

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

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

[37]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Home range dynamics and population regulation: An individual-based model of the common shrew Sorex araneus , 2007 .

[38]  C. Richard,et al.  Mechanisms of functional response and resource exploitation in browsing roe deer , 2002 .

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

[40]  W. Fagan,et al.  Population and Community Consequences of Spatial Subsidies Derived from Central‐Place Foraging , 2007, The American Naturalist.

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

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

[43]  Jonathan R Potts,et al.  Predicting local and non-local effects of resources on animal space use using a mechanistic step selection model , 2014, Methods in ecology and evolution.

[44]  J A Merkle,et al.  A memory-based foraging tactic reveals an adaptive mechanism for restricted space use. , 2014, Ecology letters.

[45]  L. Lefebvre,et al.  Brains, Innovations and Evolution in Birds and Primates , 2004, Brain, Behavior and Evolution.