Habitat selection during ungulate dispersal and exploratory movement at broad and fine scale with implications for conservation management

Movement Ecology

Mark S Boyce⁴  Marco Musiani³  Dale Paton³  Simone Ciuti¹  Henrik Thurfjell⁴  Joshua Killeen² 

[1]Department of Biometry and Environmental System Analysis, University of Freiburg, Freiburg 79106, Germany

[2]Marine Evolution and Conservation Group, Centre of Evolutionary and Ecological Studies, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

[3]Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N 1 N4, AB, Canada

[4]Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2E9, AB, Canada

关键词: Step selection functions;    Migration;    Habitat selection;    Elk;    Dispersal;    Cervus elaphus;    Alberta;   

Others  :  1171082
DOI  :  10.1186/s40462-014-0015-4

 received in 2014-03-04, accepted in 2014-06-12,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Dispersal has a critical influence on demography and gene flow and as such maintaining connectivity between populations is an essential element of modern conservation. Advances in satellite radiotelemetry are providing new opportunities to document dispersal, which previously has been difficult to study. This type of data also can be used as an empirical basis for defining landscapes in terms of resistance surfaces, enabling habitat corridors to be identified. However, despite the scale-dependent nature of habitat selection few studies have investigated selection specifically during dispersal. Here we investigate habitat selection during and around dispersal periods as well as the influence of age and sex on dispersal for a large ungulate.

Results

Of 158 elk (Cervus elaphus) tracked using GPS radiotelemetry almost all dispersers were males, with individuals dispersing up to 98 km. The dispersal period was distinct, with higher movement rates than before or after dispersal. At fine scale elk avoided the most rugged terrain in all time periods, but to a greater extent during and after dispersal, which we showed using step selection functions. In contrast, habitat selection by resident elk was less affected by ruggedness and more by an attraction to areas of higher forage availability. At the broad scale, however, movement corridors of dispersers were characterized by higher forage availability and slightly lower ruggedness then expected using correlated random walks.

Conclusions

In one of the first examples of its kind we document complete long-distance dispersal events by an ungulate in detail. We find dispersal to be distinct in terms of movement rate and also find evidence that habitat selection during dispersal may differ from habitat selection in the home-range, with potential implications for the use of resistance surfaces to define conservation corridors.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Killeen et al.; licensee BioMed Central

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bohonak AJ: Dispersal, gene flow, and population structure. Q Rev Biol 1999, 74:21-45.
• [2]Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols D: Editors: Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2001.
• [3]Dunning JB, Stewart DJ, Danielson BJ, Noon BR, Root TL, Lamberson RH, Stevens EE: Spatially explicit population models - current forms and future uses. Ecol Appl 1995, 5:3-11.
• [4]Bowler DE, Benton TG: Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 2005, 80:205-225.
• [5]Chetkiewicz CLB, Clair CCS, Boyce MS: Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2006, 37:317-342.
• [6]Tesson S, Edelaar P: Dispersal in a changing world: opportunities, insights and challenges. Movement Ecol 2013, 1:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Cagnacci F, Boitani L, Powell RA, Boyce MS: Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 2010, 365:2157-2162.
• [8]Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G: Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1993, 68:571-573.
• [9]Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR: Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 2012, 27:777-797.
• [10]Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E: The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 2003, 64:233-247.
• [11]Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD: Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 2008, 22:836-851.
• [12]Pullinger MG, Johnson CJ: Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landsc Ecol 2010, 25:1547-1560.
• [13]Squires JR, DeCesare NJ, Olson LE, Kolbe JA, Hebblewhite M, Parks SA: Combining resource selection and movement behavior to predict corridors for Canada lynx at their southern range periphery. Biol Conserv 2013, 157:187-195.
• [14]Thatcher CA, van Manen FT, Clark JD: A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expansion into Central Florida. J Mammal 2009, 90:918-925.
• [15]Soulsbury CD, Iossa G, Baker PJ, White PCL, Harris S: Behavioral and spatial analysis of extraterritorial movements in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). J Mammal 2011, 92:190-199.
• [16]Newby J: Puma dispersal ecology in the Central Rocky Mountains. In Master's thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT; 2011.
• [17]Singh NJ, Borger L, Dettki H, Bunnefeld N, Ericsson G: From migration to nomadism: movement variability in a northern ungulate across its latitudinal range. Ecol Appl 2012, 22:2007-2020.
• [18]Simberloff D, Farr JA, Cox J, Mehlman DW: Movement corridors - conservation bargains or poor investments. Conserv Biol 1992, 6:493-504.
• [19]Greenwood PJ: Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 1980, 28:1140-1162.
• [20]Ciuti S, Apollonio M: Do antlers honestly advertise the phenotypic quality of fallow buck (Dama dama) in a lekking population? Ethology 2011, 117:133-144.
• [21]Dobson FS: Competition for mates and predominant juvenile male dispersal in mammals. Anim Behav 1982, 30:1183-1192.
• [22]Hebblewhite M, Merrill E, McDermid G: A multi-scale test of the forage maturation hypothesis in a partially migratory ungulate population. Ecol Monogr 2008, 78:141-166.
• [23]Boyce MS: The Jackson Elk Herd: Intensive Wildlife Management in North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; 1989.
• [24]Kalb DM, Bowman JL, Eyler TB: Dispersal and home-range dynamics of exotic, male sika deer in Maryland. Wildl Res 2013, 40:328-335.
• [25]Petersburg ML, Alldredge AW, Vergie WJ: Emigration and survival of 2-year-old male elk in northwestern Colorado. Wildl Soc Bull 2000, 28:708-716.
• [26]Long ES, Diefenbach DR, Rosenberry CS, Wallingford BD: Multiple proximate and ultimate causes of natal dispersal in white-tailed deer. Behav Ecol 2008, 19:1235-1242.
• [27]Fryxell JM, 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 U S A 2008, 105:19114-19119.
• [28]Borger L, Fryxell JM: Quantifying individual differences in dispersal using net squared displacement. In Dispersal and Spatial Evolutionary Ecology. Edited by Clobert MB J, Benton T, Bullock J. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK; 2012.
• [29]Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Boyce M: Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Movement Ecol 2014, 2:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Johnson CJ, Parker KL, Heard DC, Gillingham MP: Movement parameters of ungulates and scale-specific responses to the environment. J Anim Ecol 2002, 71:225-235.
• [31]Jerde CL, Visscher DR: GPS measurement error influences on movement model parameterization. Ecol Appl 2005, 15:806-810.
• [32]Edge WD, Marcum CL, Olson SL, Lehmkuhl JF: Nonmigratory cow elk herd ranges as management units. J Wildl Manage 1986, 50:660-663.
• [33]Van Moorter B, Visscher D, Benhamou S, Börger L, Boyce MS, Gaillard J-M: Memory keeps you at home: a mechanistic model for home range emergence. Oikos 2009, 118:641-652.
• [34]Bruggeman JE, Garrott RA, White PJ, Watson FGR, Wallen R: Covariates affecting spatial variability in bison travel behavior in Yellowstone National Park. Ecol Appl 2007, 17:1411-1423.
• [35]Parker KL, Robbins CT, Hanley TA: Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. J Wildl Manage 1984, 48:474-488.
• [36]Frair JL, Merrill EH, Visscher DR, Fortin D, Beyer HL, Morales JM: Scales of movement by elk (Cervus elaphus) in response to heterogeneity in forage resources and predation risk. Landsc Ecol 2005, 20:273-287.
• [37]Pettorelli N, Vik JO, Mysterud A, Gaillard JM, Tucker CJ, Stenseth NC: Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. Trends Ecol Evol 2005, 20:503-510.
• [38]Green RA, Bear GD: Seasonal cycles and daily activity patterns of Rocky mountain elk. J Wildl Manage 1990, 54:272-279.
• [39]Skovlin JM, Zager P, Johnson BK: Elk habitat selection and evaluation. In Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Edited by Toweill DE, Thomas JW. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC; 2002:531-555.
• [40]Muhly TB, Semeniuk C, Massolo A, Hickman L, Musiani M: Human activity helps prey win the predator-prey space race. Plos One 2011, 6:8.
• [41]Ciuti S, Northrup JM, Muhly TB, Simi S, Musiani M, Pitt JA, Boyce MS: Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. Plos One 2012, 7:13.
• [42]Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Garton EO, Vierling LA: Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error. J Appl Ecol 2007, 44:663-671.
• [43]Bunnefeld N, Borger L, van Moorter B, Rolandsen CM, Dettki H, Solberg EJ, Ericsson G: A model-driven approach to quantify migration patterns: individual, regional and yearly differences. J Anim Ecol 2011, 80:466-476.
• [44]Mysterud A, Loe LE, Zimmermann B, Bischof R, Veiberg V, Meisingset E: Partial migration in expanding red deer populations at northern latitudes - a role for density dependence? Oikos 2011, 120:1817-1825.
• [45]Ciuti S, Muhly TB, Paton DG, McDevitt AD, Musiani M, Boyce MS: Human selection of elk behavioural traits in a landscape of fear. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 2012, 279:4407-4416.
• [46]Calenge C: The package "adehabitat" for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 2006, 197:516-519.
• [47]R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2013.
• [48]Paton DG: Connectivity of elk migration in southwestern Alberta. In Master's thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta; 2012.
• [49]Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S: lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-5. [http://cran.R-project.org/package=lme4] webciteᅟ 2013. http://cran.R-project.org/package=lme4
• [50]Muhly TB, Alexander M, Boyce MS, Creasey R, Hebblewhite M, Paton D, Pitt JA, Musiani M: Differential risk effects of wolves on wild versus domestic prey have consequences for conservation. Oikos 2010, 119:1243-1254.
• [51]Riley SJ, DeGloria SD, Elliot R: A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Intermountain J Sci 1999, 5:23-27.
• [52]Pettorelli N, Ryan S, Mueller T, Bunnefeld N, Jedrzejewska B, Lima M, Kausrud K: The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Clim Res 2011, 46:15-27.
• [53]Turchin P: Quantitative Analysis of Movement: Measuring and Modeling Population Redistribution in Plants and Animals. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA; 1998.
• [54]Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS: Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 2005, 86:1320-1330.
• [55]Muggeo VMR: segmented: an R package to fit regression models with broken-line relationships. R News 2008, 8:20-25.
• [56]Fieberg J, Matthiopoulos J, Hebblewhite M, Boyce MS, Frair JL: Correlation and studies of habitat selection: problem, red herring or opportunity? Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 2010, 365:2233-2244.
• [57]Lele SR, Merrill EH, Keim J, Boyce MS: Selection, use, choice and occupancy: clarifying concepts in resource selection studies. J Anim Ecol 2013, 82:1183-1191.
• [58]Craiu RV, Duchesne T, Fortin D, Baillargeon S: Conditional logistic regression with longitudinal follow-up and individual-level random coefficients: A stable and efficient two-step estimation method. J Comput Graph Stat 2011, 20:767-784.
• [59]Bolnick DI, Svanback R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML: The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 2003, 161:1-28.
• [60]Fortin D, Fortin ME, Beyer HL, Duchesne T, Courant S, Dancose K: Group-size-mediated habitat selection and group fusion-fission dynamics of bison under predation risk. Ecology 2009, 90:2480-2490.