Benefits of migration in a partially-migratory tropical ungulate

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Nicolas Gaidet²  Philippe Lecomte¹ 

[1] CIRAD-BIOS, UMR CIRAD/INRA SELMET, Montpellier, France

[2] CIRAD-ES, UPR AGIRS, Montpellier, France

关键词: Savannah;    Diet quality;    Spatial heterogeneity;    Individual variability;    Impala;    Density dependence;    Habitat–performance relationships;    Partial migration;   

Others  :  1085142
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6785-13-36

 received in 2012-12-14, accepted in 2013-09-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Partial migration, where one portion of a population conducts seasonal migrations while the other remains on a single range, is common in wild ungulate populations. However the relative costs and benefits associated with the distinct strategies adopted by coexisting migrant and resident individuals have rarely been investigated. Here we compare the body condition of migrants and residents in a partially migratory population of impalas (Aepyceros melampus) in Zimbabwe. The study was conducted during two consecutive years with highly contrasted population densities (16.4 and 8.6 indiv/km²) due to harvesting.

Results

We first identify a population substructure with a north–south sub-division in two spatial units related to distinct soils and vegetation cover. Impalas in the north range had a consistently higher diet quality and body condition than those in the south range. At the beginning of the dry season about one third of the individuals migrated from the lower (i.e. south) to the higher (i.e. north) diet quality range. This partial migration pattern was consistent between the consecutive years, and most individuals showed constancy to their moving strategy (migrant or resident). In both years, these migrants had a significantly higher body condition at the end of the dry season than the south residents that remained year-round in the lower diet quality range. Diet quality and body condition of impalas were higher in the year of lower density; however we did not detect any evidence for density-dependence in migration propensity, at the individual or population levels, nor in the benefit associated with migration.

Conclusions

Our findings provide rare evidence for a significant relationship between body condition and seasonal migration strategy in wild ungulates in relation to a difference in the quality of resources acquired between distinct seasonal ranges. This study also constitutes rare evidence of partial migration in a tropical ungulate population.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Gaidet and Lecomte; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Conradt L, Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE: The relationship between habitat choice and lifetime reproductive success in female red deer. Oecologia 1999, 120:218-224.
• [2]Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Duncan P, Maillard D, Van Laere G, Delorme D: Age and density modify the effects of habitat quality on survival and movements of roe deer. Ecology 2003, 84:3307-3316.
• [3]Nilsen EB, Linnell JDC, Andersen R: Individual access to preferred habitat affects fitness components in female roe deer. J Anim Ecol 2004, 73:44-50.
• [4]Jones OR, Pilkington JG, Crawley MJ: Distribution of a naturally fluctuating ungulate population among heterogeneous plant communities: ideal and free? J Anim Ecol 2006, 75:1387-1392.
• [5]McLoughlin PD, Gaillard JM, Boyce MS, Bonenfant C, Duncan P, Delorme D, Van Moorter B, Messier F, Saïd S, Klein F: Lifetime reproductive success and composition of the home range in a large herbivore. Ecology 2007, 88:3192-3201.
• [6]Coulson T, Albon SD, Guinness FE, Pemberton J, Clutton-Brock TH: Population substructure, local density, and calf winter survival in red deer. Ecology 1997, 78:852-863.
• [7]Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Yoccoz NG, Duncan P, Maillard D, Delorme D, Van Laere G, Toïgo C: The response of fawn survival to changes in habitat quality varies according to cohort quality and spatial scale. J Anim Ecol 2005, 74:972-981.
• [8]McLoughlin PD, Boyce MS, Coulson T, Clutton-Brock T: Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection. Proc R Soc B 2006, 273:1449-1454.
• [9]Festa-Bianchet M: Seasonal range selection in bighorn sheep: conflicts between forage quality, forage quantity, and predator avoidance. Oecologia 1988, 75:580-586.
• [10]Fryxell JM, Sinclair ARE: Causes and consequences of migration by large herbivores. Trends Ecol Evol 1988, 3:237-241.
• [11]Albon SD, Langvatn R: Plant phenology and the benefits of migration in a temperate ungulate. Oikos 1992, 65:502-513.
• [12]Chapman BB, Brönmark C, Nilsson JÅ, Hansson LA: The ecology and evolution of partial migration. Oikos 2011, 120:1764-1775.
• [13]Ball JP, Nordengren C, Wallin K: Partial migration by large ungulates: characteristics of seasonal moose Alces alces ranges in northern Sweden. Wildlife Biol 2001, 7:39-47.
• [14]Cagnacci F, Focardi S, Heurich M, Stache A, Hewison AJM, Morellet N, Kjellander P, Linnell JDC, Mysterud A, Neteler M, Delucchi L, Ossi F, Urbano F: Partial migration in roe deer: migratory and resident tactics are end points of a behavioural gradient determined by ecological factors. Oikos 2011, 120:1790-1802.
• [15]Mysterud A, Loe LE, Zimmermann B, Bischof R, Veiberg V, Meisingseth EL: Partial migration in expanding red deer populations at northern latitudes - a role for density dependence? Oikos 2011, 120:1817-1825.
• [16]Nicholson MC, Bowyer RT, Kie JG: Habitat selection and survival of mule deer: tradeoffs associated with migration. J Mammal 1997, 78:483-504.
• [17]Hansen BB, Aanes R, Sæther BE: Partial seasonal migration in high-arctic Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus). Can J Zool 2010, 88:1202-1209.
• [18]Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH: Demographic balancing of migrant and resident elk in a partially migratory population through forage–predation tradeoffs. Oikos 2011, 120:1860-1870.
• [19]Naidoo R, et al.: Home on the range: factors explaining partial migration of african buffalo in a tropical environment. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e36527.
• [20]Bischof R, Loe LE, Meisingset EL, Zimmermann B, Van Moorter B, Mysterud A: A migratory northern ungulate in the pursuit of spring: jumping or surfing the green wave? Am Naturalist 2012, 180:407-424.
• [21]Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH: Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate. Ecology 2009, 90:3445-3454.
• [22]Robinson BG, Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH: Are migrant and resident elk (Cervus elaphus) exposed to similar forage and predation risk on their sympatric winter range? Oecologia 2010, 164:265-275.
• [23]Middleton AD, Kauffman MJ, McWhirter DE, Cook JG, Cook RC, Nelson AA, Jimenez MD, Klaver RW: Animal migration amid shifting patterns of phenology and predation: lessons from a Yellowstone elk herd. Ecology 2013, 94:1245-1256.
• [24]Gaillard JM, Festa-Bianchet M, Yoccoz NG, Loison A, Toïgo C: Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2000, 31:367-393.
• [25]Parker KL, Barboza PS, Gillingham MP: Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct Ecol 2009, 23:57-69.
• [26]Jarman MV: Attachment to home area in impala. E Afr Wildlife J 1970, 8:198-200.
• [27]Leuthold W: Observations on the social organisation of Impala (Aepyceros melampus). Z Tierpsychol 1970, 27:693-721.
• [28]Murray MG: Home range dispersal and the clan system of impala. Afr J Ecol 1982, 20:253-269.
• [29]du Toit JT: Home range - body mass relations: a field study on African browsing ruminant. Oecologia 1990, 85:301-303.
• [30]Murray MG: Structure of association in impala Aepyceros melampus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1981, 9:23-33.
• [31]van Soest PJ: Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis Oregon: O and B Books; 1982.
• [32]Leslie DM, Bowyer RT, Jenks J: Facts from feces: Nitrogen still measures up as a nutritional index for mammalian herbivores. J Wildlife Manage 2008, 72:1420-1433.
• [33]Gaidet N, Gaillard JM: Density-dependent body condition and recruitment in a tropical ungulate. Can J Zool 2008, 86:24-32.
• [34]Poilecot P, Gaidet N: A quantitative study of the grass and woody layers of a mopane (Colophospermum mopane) savannah in the mid-Zambezi valley, Zimbabwe. Afr J Ecol 2010, 49:150-164.
• [35]De Wispelaere G: Natural Resource Management within Multispecies Systems in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Report No. 01-32. Montpellier, France: Commission Européenne/CIRAD; 2001.
• [36]Gaidet N, Fritz H, Nyahuma C: A participatory counting method to monitor populations of large mammals in non-protected areas: a case study of bicycle counts in the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Biodivers Conserv 2003, 12:1571-1585.
• [37]Dixon RM, Coates DB: Near infrared spectroscopy of faeces to evaluate the nutrition and physiology of herbivores. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 2009, 17:1-31.
• [38]Williams PC: Implementation of near-infrared technology. In Near-infrared Technology in the Agricultural and Food Industries. Edited by Williams P, Norris K. Minnesota: American Association of Cereal Chemists; 2001:145-169.
• [39]Gasaway WC, Gasaway KT, Berry HH: Persistent low densities of plains ungulates in Etosha National Park, Namibia: testing the food-regulating hypothesis. Can J Zool 1996, 74:1556-1572.
• [40]Riney T: A field technique for assessing physical condition in some ungulates. J Wildlife Manage 1960, 24:92-94.
• [41]Project B: Mankind and Animals in the Mid Zambezi Valley. Montpellier, France: Zimbabwe. CIRAD- Emvt; 2001.
• [42]Dunham KM: The diet of impala (Aepyceros melampus) in the Sengwa wildlife research area, Rhodesia. J Zool 1980, 192:41-57.
• [43]Fryxell JM: Food limitation and demography of a migratory antelope, the white-eared kob. Oecologia 1987, 72:83-91.
• [44]Owen-Smith N: Demography of a large herbivore, the greater kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros in relation to rainfall. J Anim Ecol 1990, 59:893-913.
• [45]Mduma SAR, Sinclair ARE, Hilborn R: Food regulates the Serengeti wildebeest: a 40-year record. J Anim Ecol 1999, 68:1101-1122.
• [46]Gaillard JM, Hebblewhite M, Loison A, Fuller M, Powell R, Basille M, Van Moorter B: Habitat–performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale. Phil Trans R Soc B 2010, 365:2255-2265.
• [47]Morrison TA, Bolger DT: Wet season range fidelity in a tropical migratory ungulate. J Anim Ecol 2012, 81:543-552.
• [48]Estes R: The Behaviour Guide to African Mammals. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1991.
• [49]Jarman MV: Impala Social Behavior. Territory, Hierarchy, Mating and the Use of Space. In Advances in Ethology, Vol. 21. Edited by Wickler W, Curio E. Berlin: Parey; 1979.
• [50]Dasmann RF, Mossman AS: Population studies of impala in southern Rhodesia. J Mammal 1962, 43:375-395.
• [51]Jarman PJ: Seasonal distribution of large mammal populations in the unflooded Middle Zambezi Valley. J Appl Ecol 1972, 9:283-299.
• [52]Fryxell JM, Holt RD: Environmental change and the evolution of migration. Ecology 2013, 94:1274-1279.
• [53]Switzer PV: Past reproductive success affects future habitat selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1997, 40:307-312.
• [54]Fryxell J, Hazell M, Borger L, Dalziel BD, Haydon DT, Morales JM, McIntosh T, Rosatte RC: Multiple movement modes by large herbivores at multiple spatiotemporal scales. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105:19114-19119.
• [55]Bolger DT, Newmark WD, Morrison TA, Doak DF: The need for integrative approaches to understand and conserve migratory ungulates. Ecol Lett 2008, 11:63-77.
• [56]Fairall N: Production parameters of the impala, Aepyceros melampus. S Afr J Anim Sci 1983, 13:176-179.