Mechanistic home range models capture spatial patterns and dynamics of coyote territories in Yellowstone

Patterns of space-use by individuals are fundamental to the ecology of animal populations influencing their social organization, mating systems, demography and the spatial distribution of prey and competitors. To date, the principal method used to analyse the underlying determinants of animal home range patterns has been resource selection analysis (RSA), a spatially implicit approach that examines the relative frequencies of animal relocations in relation to landscape attributes. In this analysis, we adopt an alternative approach, using a series of mechanistic home range models to analyse observed patterns of territorial space-use by coyote packs in the heterogeneous landscape of Yellowstone National Park. Unlike RSAs, mechanistic home range models are derived from underlying correlated random walk models of individual movement behaviour, and yield spatially explicit predictions for patterns of space-use by individuals. As we show here, mechanistic home range models can be used to determine the underlying determinants of animal home range patterns, incorporating both movement responses to underlying landscape heterogeneities and the effects of behavioural interactions between individuals. Our analysis indicates that the spatial arrangement of coyote territories in Yellowstone is determined by the spatial distribution of prey resources and an avoidance response to the presence of neighbouring packs. We then show how the fitted mechanistic home range model can be used to correctly predict observed shifts in the patterns of coyote space-use in response to perturbation.

[1]  Wayne M. Getz,et al.  A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions , 2004 .

[2]  P. Waser Spatial structure in Mangabey groups , 1985, International journal of primatology.

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

[4]  Nicholas J. Aebischer,et al.  Compositional Analysis of Habitat Use From Animal Radio-Tracking Data , 1993 .

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

[6]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Accounting for Variation in Resource Availability and Animal Behavior in Resource Selection Studies , 2001 .

[7]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Radio-Tracking and Animal Populations: Past Trends and Future Needs , 2001 .

[8]  DANA L. THOMAS,et al.  Study Designs and Tests for Comparing Resource Use and Availability II , 2006 .

[9]  Shay Howlin,et al.  Statistical Issues in Resource Selection Studies with Radio-Marked Animals , 2001 .

[10]  R. Ruff,et al.  Intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing coyote predation of small mammals in Yellowstone National Park , 1996 .

[11]  L. Barrett,et al.  Random walks and the gas model: spacing behaviour of Grey-Cheeked Mangabeys , 1998 .

[12]  Richard S. Ostfeld,et al.  Territoriality and mating system of California voles , 1986 .

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

[14]  Bryan F. J. Manly,et al.  Assessing habitat selection when availability changes , 1996 .

[15]  Jason Matthiopoulos,et al.  The use of space by animals as a function of accessibility and preference , 2003 .

[16]  P. Jarman,et al.  The Social Organisation of Antelope in Relation To Their Ecology , 1974 .

[17]  William F. Porter,et al.  Effects of environmental pattern on habitat preference analysis , 1987 .

[18]  T. Schoener,et al.  Densities, Sex Ratios, and Population Structure in Four Species of Bahamian Anolis Lizards , 1980 .

[19]  Paul R. Moorcroft,et al.  Home range analysis using a mechanistic home range model , 1999 .

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

[21]  J. R. Alldredge,et al.  Comparison of some statistical techniques for analysis of resource selection , 1986 .

[22]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park , 2003 .

[23]  Timothy D. Reynolds,et al.  STUDY DESIGNS AND TESTS FOR COMPARING RESOURCE USE AND AVAILABILITY , 1990 .

[24]  M. A. Lewis,et al.  Modelling territoriality and wolf–deer interactions , 1993, Nature.

[25]  J. Roughgarden Anolis lizards of the Caribbean , 1995 .

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

[27]  Eric M. Gese,et al.  Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): the influence of extrinsic factors and a dominance hierarchy , 1996 .

[28]  D. B. Siniff,et al.  A Simulation Model of Animal Movement Patterns , 1969 .

[29]  M. Boyce,et al.  Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  Carl Gans,et al.  Biology of the Reptilia , 1969 .

[31]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Radio Tracking and Animal Populations , 2001 .

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

[33]  B. L. Keller,et al.  Home-range use by coyotes in Idaho , 1981, Animal Behaviour.

[34]  Katrin White,et al.  A Model for Wolf-Pack Territory Formation and Maintenance , 1996 .