Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 173, Issue 2, pp 409–420 | Cite as

Temporal variation in site fidelity: scale-dependent effects of forage abundance and predation risk in a non-migratory large herbivore

  • F. M. van Beest
  • E. Vander Wal
  • A. V. Stronen
  • P. C. Paquet
  • R. K. Brook
Behavioral ecology - Original research

Abstract

Large herbivores are typically confronted by considerable spatial and temporal variation in forage abundance and predation risk. Although animals can employ a range of behaviours to balance these limiting factors, scale-dependent movement patterns are expected to be an effective strategy to reduce predation risk and optimise foraging opportunities. We tested this prediction by quantifying site fidelity of global positioning system-collared, non-migratory female elk (Cervus canadensis manitobensis) across multiple nested temporal scales using a long-established elk–wolf (Canis lupus) system in Manitoba, Canada. Using a hierarchical analytical approach, we determined the combined effect of forage abundance and predation risk on variation in site fidelity within four seasons across four nested temporal scales: monthly, biweekly, weekly, daily. Site fidelity of female elk was positively related to forage-rich habitat across all seasons and most temporal scales. At the biweekly, weekly and daily scales, elk became increasingly attached to low forage habitat when risk was high (e.g. when wolves were close or pack sizes were large), which supports the notion that predator-avoidance movements lead to a trade-off between energetic requirements and safety. Unexpectedly, predation risk at the monthly scale increased fidelity, which may indicate that elk use multiple behavioural responses (e.g. movement, vigilance, and aggregation) simultaneously to dilute predation risk, especially at longer temporal scales. Our study clearly shows that forage abundance and predation risk are important scale-dependent determinants of variation in site fidelity of non-migratory female elk and that their combined effect is most apparent at short temporal scales. Insight into the scale-dependent behavioural responses of ungulate populations to limiting factors such as predation risk and forage variability is essential to infer the fitness costs incurred.

Keywords

Antipredator response movement Risk effect Trade-off Ungulates 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by grants and logistical support from Riding Mountain National Park, Canada and financial support from Manitoba Conservation, University of Saskatchewan, University of Manitoba, and PrioNet Canada. We thank Richard Caners for supplying the forage abundance data and Stephen Webb for helpful discussions on elk movement and predation risk effects. Göran Ericsson, Joris Cromsigt, and one anonymous referee provided many helpful and constructive comments on a previous version of this manuscript. All animals were captured and handled in accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care and approved by the ethics committees at the University of Manitoba (protocol number F01-037), the University of Saskatchewan (protocol number 20060067), and in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (ref. 03-01-473).

Supplementary material

442_2013_2647_MOESM1_ESM.doc (734 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 734 kb)

References

  1. Bangs E, Fritts S (1996) Reintroducing the gray wolf to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Wildl Soc Bull 24:402–413Google Scholar
  2. Berger J (2004) The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conserv Biol 18:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergerud A (1988) Caribou, wolves and man. Trends Ecol Evol 3:68–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjørneraas K, Van Moorter B, Rolandsen CM, Herfindal I (2010) Screening GPS location data for errors using animal movement characteristics. J Wildl Manage 74:1361–1366Google Scholar
  5. Bolger DT, Newmark WD, Morrison TA, Doak DF (2008) The need for integrative approaches to understand and conserve migratory ungulates. Ecol Lett 11:63–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Börger L, Franconi N, Ferretti F, Meschi F, De Michele G, Gantz A, Coulson T (2006) An integrated approach to identify spatiotemporal and individual-level determinants of animal home range size. Am Nat 168:471–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowyer RT, Kie JG (2006) Effects of scale on interpreting life-history characteristics of ungulates and carnivores. Divers Distrib 12:244–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broderick AC, Coyne MS, Fuller WJ, Glen F, Godley BJ (2007) Fidelity and over-wintering of sea turtles. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 274:1533–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brook RK (2010) Habitat selection by parturient elk in agricultural and forested landscapes. Can J Zool 88:968–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Childress M, Lung M (2003) Predation risk, gender and the group size effect: does elk vigilance depend upon the behaviour of conspecifics? Anim Behav 66:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christianson D, Creel S (2010) A nutritionally mediated risk effect of wolves on elk. Ecology 91:1184–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark D, Gillingham J (1990) Sleep-site fidelity in 2 Puerto-Rican lizards. Anim Behav 39:1138–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creel S (2011) Toward a predictive theory of risk effects: hypotheses for prey attributes and compensatory mortality. Ecology 92:2190–2195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creel S, Winnie J, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Creel M (2005) Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86:3387–3397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Creel S, Winnie JA, Christianson D, Liley S (2008) Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk. Anim Behav 76:1139–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Creel S, Christianson DA, Winnie JA (2011) A survey of the effects of wolf predation risk on pregnancy rates and calf recruitment in elk. Ecol Appl 21:2847–2853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doncaster CP, Macdonald DW (1991) Drifting territoriality in the red fox Vulpes vulpes. J Anim Ecol 60:423–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edge WD, Marcum CL, Olson SL (1985) Effects of logging activities on home-range fidelity of elk. J Wildl Manage 49:741–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faille G, Dussault C, Ouellet J-P, Fortin D, Courtois R, St-Laurent M-H, Dussault C (2010) Range fidelity: the missing link between caribou decline and habitat alteration? Biol Conserv 143:2840–2850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fieberg J, Kochanny CO (2005) Quantifying home-range overlap: the importance of the utilization distribution. J Wildl Manage 69:1346–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86:1320–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frair JL, Merrill EH, Visscher DR, Fortin D, Beyer HL, Morales JM (2005) Scales of movement by elk (Cervus elaphus) in response to heterogeneity in forage resources and predation risk. Landsc Ecol 20:273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frair JL, Merrill EH, Allen JR, Boyce MS (2007) Know thy enemy: experience affects elk translocation success in risky landscapes. J Wildl Manage 71:541–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fryxell JM, Greever J, Sinclair ARE (1988) Why are migratory ungulates so abundant? Am Nat 131:781–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gower CN, Garrott RA, White PJ, Watson FGR, Cornish SS, Becker MS (2009) Spatial responses of elk to wolf predation risk: using the landscape to balance multiple demands. In: Garrott RA, White PJ, Watson FGR (eds) The ecology of large mammals in central Yellowstone; sixteen years of integrated field studies. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 373–399Google Scholar
  27. Hebblewhite M, Merrill E (2008) Modeling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. J Appl Ecol 45:834–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH (2009) Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate. Ecology 90:3445–3454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kernohan BJ, Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ (2001) Analysis of animal space use and movements. In: Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM (eds) Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 126–164Google Scholar
  30. Kirk M, Esler D, Iverson SA, Boyd WS (2008) Movements of wintering surf scoters: predator responses to different prey landscapes. Oecologia 155:859–867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kittle AM, Fryxell JM, Desy GE, Hamr J (2008) The scale-dependent impact of wolf predation risk on resource selection by three sympatric ungulates. Oecologia 157:163–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liley S, Creel S (2008) What best explains vigilance in elk: characteristics of prey, predators, or the environment? Behav Ecol 19:245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lima S, Dill L (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Millspaugh JSJ, Gitzen RA, Kernohan BJ, Larson JA, Clay CL (2004) Comparability of three analytical techniques to assess joint space use. Wildl Soc Bull 32:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell W, Lima S (2002) Predator-prey shell games: large-scale movement and its implications for decision-making by prey. Oikos 99:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliver I, Beattie AJ, York A (1998) Spatial fidelity of plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate assemblages in multiple-use forest in eastern Australia. Conserv Biol 12:822–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ortega YK, McKelvey KS, Six DL (2006) Invasion of an exotic forb impacts reproductive success and site fidelity of a migratory songbird. Oecologia 149:340–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Owen-Smith N, Fryxell JM, Merrill EH (2010) Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement. Phil Trans R Soc B 365:2267–2278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paquet P (1992) Prey use strategies of sympatric wolves and coyotes in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. J Mammal 73:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paquet PC, Brook RK (2004) From the field: island use as an anti-predator tactic by parturient elk and nursery herds in Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. Wildl Soc Bull 32:1321–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus: statistics and computing. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piper WH (2011) Making habitat selection more “familiar”: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1329–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  45. Rettie W, Messier F (2001) Range use and movement rates of woodland caribou in Saskatchewan. Can J Zool 79:1933–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Mysterud A (2010) How does local weather predict red deer home range size at different temporal scales? J Anim Ecol 79:1280–1295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaefer J, Bergman C, Luttich S (2000) Site fidelity of female caribou at multiple spatial scales. Landsc Ecol 15:731–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schieck J, Hannon S (1989) Breeding site fidelity in willow ptarmigan—the influence of previous reproductive success and familiarity with partner and territory. Oecologia 81:465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Switzer P (1993) Site fidelity in predictable and unpredictable habitats. Evol Ecol 7:533–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turner G, Pitcher T (1986) Attack abatement—a model for group protection by combined avoidance and dilution. Am Nat 128:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tveraa T, Fauchald P, Henaug C, Yoccoz NG (2003) An examination of a compensatory relationship between food limitation and predation in semi-domestic reindeer. Oecologia 137:370–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Beest FM, Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Milner JM, Mysterud A (2011) What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol 80:771–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Beest FM, Vander Wal E, Stronen AV, Brook RK (2013) Factors driving variation in movement rate and seasonality of sympatric ungulates. J Mammal 94 (early view) doi: 10.1644/12-MAMM-A-080.1
  54. Vander Wal E, Paquet PC, Andrés JA (2012) Influence of landscape and social interactions on transmission of disease in a social cervid. Mol Ecol 21:1271–1282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vander Wal E, van Beest FM, Brook RK (2013) Density-dependent effects on group size are sex-specific in a gregarious ungulate. PLoS ONE 8:e53777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Warton DI, Hui FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White GC, Garrott RA (1990) Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. White PJ, Garrott RA, Cherry S, Watson FGR, Gower CN, Becker MS, Meredith E (2009) Changes in elk resource selection and distribution. In: The ecology of large mammals in central Yellowstone; sixteen years of integrated field studies. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 451–476Google Scholar
  59. White PJ, Garrott RA, Hamlin KL, Cook RC, Cook JG, Cunningham JA (2011) Body condition and pregnancy in northern Yellowstone elk: evidence for predation risk effects? Ecol Appl 21:3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winnie J, Creel S (2007) Sex-specific behavioural responses of elk to spatial and temporal variation in the threat of wolf predation. Anim Behav 73:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiseman P, Carling M, Byers J (2006) Frequency and correlates of birth-site fidelity in pronghorns (Antilocapra americana). J Mammal 87:312–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wittmer HU, McLellan BN, Hovey FW (2006) Factors influencing variation in site fidelity of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in southeastern British Columbia. Can J Zool 84:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wolf M, Frair J, Merrill E, Turchin P (2009) The attraction of the known: the importance of spatial familiarity in habitat selection in wapiti Cervus elaphus. Ecography 32:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Young JK, Franklin WL (2004) Territorial fidelity of male Guanacos in the Patagonia of southern Chile. J Mammal 85:72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zheng B, Agresti A (2000) Summarizing the predictive power of a generalized linear model. Stat Med 19:1771–1781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. M. van Beest
    • 1
  • E. Vander Wal
    • 2
  • A. V. Stronen
    • 3
  • P. C. Paquet
    • 4
  • R. K. Brook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Poultry Science, College of Agriculture and BioresourcesUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Département de biologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  3. 3.Mammal Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesBialowiezaPoland
  4. 4.Department of GeographyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations