Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 383–390 | Cite as

Density dependence in social behaviour: home range overlap and density interacts to affect conspecific encounter rates in a gregarious ungulate

  • Eric Vander Wal
  • Michel P. Laforge
  • Philip D. McLoughlin
Original Paper

Abstract

Sociality is poorly understood in the context of population processes. We used wild, female elk (Cervus canadensis) equipped with proximity-logging radio collars (n = 62) from Manitoba, Canada (2007–2009), to test for modifying effects of population density (two areas: 0.42 and 0.22 animals/km2) on the relationship between two measures of sociality. This included the rate at which collared individuals encountered one another per year (encounters logged as animals ranging to within 1.4 m of each other) and the extent to which animals overlapped in annual home range (proportion of shared minimum convex polygon ranges). Overlap was significantly greater in the high density area compared to that of the low, but not if we only considered individuals that directly encountered each other, implying that familiar individuals will maintain a constant degree of range overlap regardless of density. Encounter rate was nonlinearly related to home range overlap. This relationship was also density-dependent, exhibiting negative density dependence at high proportions of overlap, primarily in the high density subpopulation. Sociality, as defined by two interacting measures of behaviour—encounter rate and home range overlap—exhibits a complex nonlinear relationship; we discuss the implications of these results as they pertain to sociobiology, resource competition, and pathogen transmission.

Keywords

Cervus canadensis Density dependence Elk Encounter rate Sociality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding and logistical support was provided primarily by Parks Canada Agency, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (F. Messier, P.D. McLoughlin), and PrioNet Canada. P. Simpson and B. Simpson adroitly flew elk relocation flights and C. Wilson, T. Vandenbrink, and T. Shury efficiently and safely handled elk. R. Grzela, S. McKay, R. Robinson, S. Johnstone, J. Dillabough, B. Blackbird, S. Boychuk, S. Helms, A. Ledden, and M. Benson assisted with monitoring collared animals. Thanks to T. Sallows, D. Bergeson, and K. Kingdon at Parks Canada for their commitment to this research and to F. Messier, R. K. Brook, and F. Pelletier for support while writing this manuscript. Also, thanks to Kathreen Ruckstuhl and a number of anonymous reviewers whose suggestions markedly improved our work.

Ethical Standards

Our study, which occurred in Canada, complied with the current laws of the country at the time. Our research followed Animal Care Protocol #20060067 of the University of Saskatchewan following the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

Supplementary material

265_2013_1652_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (540 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 540 kb)

References

  1. Albon SD, Stien A, Irvine RJ, Langvatn R, Ropstad E, Halvorsen O (2002) The role of parasites in the dynamics of a reindeer population. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1625–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton K. (2010) MuMIn: multi-model inference version 0.13.1 http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
  3. Bateman AW, Ozgul A, Coulson T, Clutton-Brock TH (2012) Density dependence in group dynamics of a highly social mongoose, Suricata suricatta. J Anim Ecol 81:628–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brashares JS, Werner JR, Sinclair ARE (2010) Social “meltdown” in the demise of an island endemic: allee effects and the Vancouver Island marmot. J Anim Ecol 79:965–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brook RK, McLachlan SM (2006) Factors influencing farmers’ concerns regarding bovine tuberculosis in wildlife and livestock around Riding Mountain National Park. J Environ Manage 80:156–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brook RK, Vander Wal E, van Beest FM, McLachlan SM (2013) Use of cattle winter feeding areas by elk and white-tailed deer: implications for managing bovine tuberculosis transmission risk from the ground up. Prev Vet Med 108:137–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Caley P, Spencer NJ, Cole RA, Efford MG (1998) The effect of manipulating population density on the probability of den-sharing among common brushtail possums, and the implications for transmission of bovine tuberculosis. Wildlife Res 25:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caners RT, Kenkel NC (2003) Forest stand structure and dynamics at Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, Canada. Community Ecol 4:185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter FL, Macmillen RE (1976) Threshold model of feeding territoriality and test with a Hawaiian honeycreeper. Science 194:639–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cattet MRL, Caulkett NA, Wilson C, Vandenbrink T, Brook RK (2004) Intranasal administration of xylazine to reduce stress in elk captured by net gun. J Wildlife Dis 40:562–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaverri G, Gamba-Rios M, Kunz TH (2007) Range overlap and association patterns in the tent-making bat Artibeus watsoni. Anim Behav 73:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christianson DA, Creel S (2007) A review of environmental factors affecting elk winter diets. J Wildlife Manage 71:164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Côté IM, Poulin R (1995) Parasitism and group size in social animals: a meta-analysis. Behav Ecol 6:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Couzin ID (2006) Behavioral ecology: social organization in fission–fusion societies. Curr Biol 16:R169–R171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cross PC, Creech TG, Ebinger MR, Heisey DM, Irvine KM, Creel S (2012) Wildlife contact analysis: emerging methods, questions, and challenges. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:1437–1447Google Scholar
  18. Cross PC, Creech TG, Ebinger MR, Manlove K, Irvine KM, Henningsen J, Rogerson JD, Scurlock BM, Creel S (2013) Female elk contacts are neither frequency nor density dependent. Ecology 94:2076–2086PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dahle B, Swenson JE (2003) Home ranges in adult Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos): effect of mass, sex, reproductive category, population density and habitat type. J Zool 260:329–335Google Scholar
  20. Dubost G (1970) L’organisation spatiale et sociale de Muntiacus reevesi Ogilby 1839 en semi-liberté. Mammalia 34:331–355Google Scholar
  21. Erlinge S, Hoogenboom I, Agrell J, Nelson J, Sandell M (1990) Density-related home-range size and overlap in adult field voles (Microtus agrestis) in southern Sweden. J Mammal 71:597–603Google Scholar
  22. Ferron J, Ouellet JP (1989) Temporal and intersexual variations in the use of space with regard to social organization in the woodchuck (Marmota monax). Can J Zool 67:1642–1649Google Scholar
  23. Fortin D, Fortin M-E, Beyer HL, Duchesne T, Courant S, Dancose K (2009) Group-size-mediated habitat selection and group fusion–fission dynamics of bison under predation risk. Ecology 90:2480–2490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Franklin WL, Mossman AS, Dole M (1975) Social organization and home range of Roosevelt elk. J Mammal 56:102–118Google Scholar
  25. Franks DW, Ruxton GD, James R (2010) Sampling animal association networks with the gambit of the group. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:493–503Google Scholar
  26. Gerard J-F, Loisel P (1995) Spontaneous emergence of a relationship between habitat openness and mean group size and its possible evolutionary consequences in large herbivores. J Theor Biol 176:511–522Google Scholar
  27. Goodman EL (2007) Quantifying interactions in a high-density badger (Meles meles) population. Dissertation, University of YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Haydon DT, Morales JM, Yott A, Jenkins DA, Rosatte R, Fryxell JM (2008) Socially informed random walks: incorporating group dynamics into models of population spread and growth. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:1101–1109Google Scholar
  29. Hebblewhite M, Pletscher DH (2002) Effects of elk group size on predation by wolves. Can J Zool 80:800–809Google Scholar
  30. Hinde RA (1976) Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man 11:1–17Google Scholar
  31. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211Google Scholar
  32. Ji W, White PCL, Clout MN (2005) Contact rates between possums revealed by proximity data loggers. J Appl Ecol 42:595–604Google Scholar
  33. Kjaer LJ, Schauber EM, Nielsen CK (2008) Spatial and temporal analysis of contact rates in female white-tailed deer. J Wildlife Manage 72:1819–1825Google Scholar
  34. Krause J, Ruxton G (2002) Living in Groups . Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Lloyd-Smith JO, Cross PC, Briggs CJ, Daughtery M, Getz WM, Latto J, Sanchez MS, Simth AB, Swei A (2005) Should we expect population thresholds for wildlife disease? Trends Ecol Evol 20:511–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Manly BFJ (1998) Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Matthysen E (2005) Density-dependent dispersal in birds and mammals. Ecography 28:403–416Google Scholar
  38. McCallum H, Barlow N, Hone J (2001) How should pathogen transmission be modelled? Trends Ecol Evol 16:295–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. McLoughlin PD, Ferguson SH, Messier F (2000) Intraspecific variation in home range overlap with habitat quality: a comparison among brown bear populations. Evol Ecol 14:39–60Google Scholar
  40. Millspaugh JJ, Brundige GC, Gitzen RA, Raedeke KJ (2004a) Herd organization of cow elk in Custer State Park, South Dakota. Wildlife Soc B 32:506–514Google Scholar
  41. Millspaugh JJ, Gitzen RA, Kernohan BJ, Larson MA, Clay CL (2004b) Comparability of three analytical techniques to assess joint space use. Wildlife Soc B 32:148–157Google Scholar
  42. Mobæk R, Mysterud A, Loe LE, Holand Ø, Austrheim G (2012) Experimental evidence of density dependent activity pattern of a large herbivore in an alpine ecosystem. Oikos 121:364–1369Google Scholar
  43. Morris DW (2003) Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Moyle K, Johnston D, Knott B, Melville-Smith R, Walker D (2009) Effect of stocking density on the growth, survival, and behavior of postpuerulus western rock lobster, Panulirus cygnus (George) (Decapoda: Palinuridae). J World Aquac Soc 40:255–265Google Scholar
  45. Nielsen CK, Woolf A (2001) Spatial organization of bobcats (Lynx rufus) in Southern Illinois. Am Midl Nat 146:43–52Google Scholar
  46. Nishi JS, Shury T, Elkin BT (2006) Wildlife reservoirs for bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) in Canada: strategies for management and research. Vet Microbiol 112:215–338Google Scholar
  47. Ostfeld RS, Lidicker WZ, Heske EJ (1985) The relationship between habitat heterogeneity, space use, and demography in a population of California voles. Oikos 45:433–442Google Scholar
  48. Pépin D, Gerard J-F (2008) Group dynamics and local population density dependence of group size in the Pyrenean chamois, Rupicapra pyrenaica. Anim Behav 75:361–369Google Scholar
  49. Pettit-Riley R, Estevez I, Russek-Cohen E (2002) Effects of crowding and access to perches on aggressive behaviour in broilers. App Anim Behav Sci 79:11–25Google Scholar
  50. Prange S, Jordan T, Hunter C, Gehrt SD (2006) New radiocollars for the detection of proximity among individuals. Wildlife Soc B 34:1333–1344Google Scholar
  51. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  52. Ramsey D, Spencer N, Caley P, Efford M, Hansen K, Lam M, Cooper D (2002) The effects of reducing population density on contact rates between brushtail possums: implications for transmission of bovine tuberculosis. J Appl Ecol 39:806–818Google Scholar
  53. Rieucau G, Giraldeau L-A (2011) Exploring the costs and benefits of social information use: an appraisal of current experimental evidence. Philos T R Soc Lond B 366:949–957Google Scholar
  54. Robert K, Garant D, Pelletier F (2012) Keep in touch: does spatial overlap correlate with contact rate frequency? J Wildlife Manage 76:1670–1675Google Scholar
  55. Robert KR, Garant D, Vander Wal E, Pelletier F (2013) Context-dependent social behaviour: testing the interplay between season and kinship with raccoons. J Zool 290:199–207Google Scholar
  56. Rodgers AR, Carr AP, Smith L, Kie J (2005) Home Range Tools for ArcGIS 9.x. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  57. Rowe JS (1972) Forest Regions of Canada. Information Canada, Ottawa, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruckstuhl KE, Festa-Bianchet M (2001) Group choice by subadult bighorn rams: trade-offs between foraging efficiency and predator avoidance. Ethology 107:161–172Google Scholar
  59. Schauber EM, Storm DJ, Nielsen CK (2007) Effects of joint space use and group membership on contact rates among white-tailed deer. J Wildlife Manage 71:155–163Google Scholar
  60. Shury TK, Bergeson G (2011) Lesion distribution and epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis in elk and white-tailed deer in south-western Manitoba, Canada. Vet Med Int 2011: Article ID 591980, 11 pagesGoogle Scholar
  61. Steury TD, Murray DL (2003) Causes and consequences of individual variation in territory size in the American red squirrel. Oikos 101:147–156Google Scholar
  62. Tompkins DM, Dunn AM, Smith MJ, Telfer S (2011) Wildlife diseases: from individuals to ecosystems. J Anim Ecol 80:19–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Vander Wal E (2011) Sex, friends, and disease: the social ecology of elk (Cervus elaphus) with implications for pathogen transmission. Dissertation, University of SaskatchewanGoogle Scholar
  64. Vander Wal E, McLoughlin PD, Brook RK (2011) Spatial and temporal factors influencing sightability of elk. J Wildlife Manage 75:1521–1526Google Scholar
  65. Vander Wal E, Yip H, McLoughlin PD (2012a) Sex-based differences in density-dependent sociality: an experiment with a gregarious ungulate. Ecology 93:206–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Vander Wal E, Paquet PC, Andrés JA (2012b) Influence of landscape and social interactions on transmission of disease in a social cervid. Mol Ecol 21:1271–1282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Vander Wal E, van Beest FM, Brook RK (2013a) Density-dependent effects of group size are sex-specific in a gregarious ungulate. PLoS ONE 8:e53777PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Vander Wal E, Edye I, Paquet PC, Coltman DW, Bayne E, Brook RK, Andrés JA (2013b) Juxtaposition between host population structures: implications for pathogen transmission in a cervid community. Evol Appl 6:1001–1011PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Vander Wal E, Paquet PC, Messier F, McLoughlin PD (2013c) Effects of phenology and sex on social proximity in a gregarious ungulate. Can J Zool 91:601–609Google Scholar
  70. Walrath R, Van Deelen TR, VerCauteren KC (2011) Efficacy of proximity loggers for detection of contacts between maternal pairs of white-tailed deer. Wildlife Soc B 35:452–460Google Scholar
  71. Weckerly FW (1999) Social bonding and aggression in female Roosevelt elk. Can J Zool 77:1379–1384Google Scholar
  72. White TCL (2004) Limitation of populations by weather-driven changes in food: a challenge to density-dependent regulation. Oikos 105:664–666Google Scholar
  73. White PCL, Harris S (1994) Encounters between red foxes (Vulpes vulpes): implications for territory maintenance, social cohesion and dispersal. J Anim Ecol 63:315–327Google Scholar
  74. Whitehead H (1997) Analysing animal social structure. Anim Behav 53:1953–1067Google Scholar
  75. Whitehead H, Dufault S (1999) Techniques for analyzing vertebrate social structure using identified individuals: review and recommendations. Adv Stud Behav 28:33–74Google Scholar
  76. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Belknap, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  77. Wronski T, Apio A (2006) Home-range overlap, social vicinity and agonistic interactions denoting matrilineal organisation in bushbuck, Tragelaphus scriptus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:819–828Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Vander Wal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michel P. Laforge
    • 1
  • Philip D. McLoughlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Département de biologieUniversité de SherbookeSherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations