Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 567–589 | Cite as

Evolutionarily stable consumer home range size in relation to resource demography and consumer spatial organization

  • Frederic Barraquand
  • David John Murrell
Original Paper

Abstract

There is a large variation in home range size within species, yet few models relate that variation to demographic and life-history traits. We derive an approximate deterministic population dynamics model keeping track of spatial structure, via spatial moment equations, from an individual-based spatial consumer-resource model; where space-use of consumers resembles that of central place foragers. Using invasion analyses, we investigate how the evolutionarily stable home range size of the consumer depends on a number of ecological and behavioral traits of both the resource and the consumer. We show that any trait variation leading to a decreased overall resource production or an increased spatial segregation between consumer and resource acts to increase consumer home range size. In this way, we extend theoretical predictions on optimal territory size to a larger range of ecological scenarios where home ranges overlap and population dynamics feedbacks are possible. Consideration of spatial traits such as dispersal distances also generates new results: (1) consumer home range size decreases with increased resource dispersal distance, and (2) when consumer agonistic behavior is weak, more philopatric consumers have larger home ranges. Finally, our results emphasize the role of the spatial correlation between consumer and resource distributions in determining home range size, and suggest resource dispersion is less important.

Keywords

Home range Territory Foraging Spatial segregation Resource dispersion Adaptive dynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Part of this research was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) Blue Skies Fellowship NE/D009367/1 to DJM, and FB was supported by a Ph.D. grant from the French Ministry of Research/Univ. Paris 6, and BiodivAgriM research program. We thank Alexandre Villers, Vincent Bretagnolle, Stephen Cornell, and John Fryxell for comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the manuscript, as well as two referees for very constructive criticism.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Adams E (2001) Approaches to the study of territory size and shape. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 32(1):277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1981) Central place foraging in the whinchat, Saxicola rubetra. Ecology 62(3):538–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arditi R, Tyutyunov Y, Morgulis A, Govorukhin V, Senina I (2001) Directed movement of predators and the emergence of density-dependence in predator-prey models. Theor Popul Biol 59(3):207–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackwell P (1997) Random diffusion models for animal movement. Ecol Model 100(1–3):87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker B, Pacala S (1997) Using moment equations to understand stochastically driven spatial pattern formation in ecological systems. Theor Popul Biol 52(3):179–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonal R, Aparicio J (2008) Evidence of prey depletion around lesser kestrel Falco naumanni colonies and its short term negative consequences. J Avian Biol 39(2):189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boots M (1999) ‘Small worlds’ and the evolution of virulence: infection occurs locally and at a distance. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 266(1432):1933–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borger L, Dalziel B, Fryxell J (2008) Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett 11(6):637–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borger L, Franconi N, Ferretti F, Meschi F, 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(4):471–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Both C, Visser M (2003) Density dependence, territoriality, and divisibility of resources: from optimality models to population processes. Am Nat 161(2):326–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowman J (2003) Is dispersal distance of birds proportional to territory size? Can J Zool 81(2):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowman J, Jaeger J, Fahrig L (2002) Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83(7):2049–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Briggs C, Hoopes M (2004) Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid–host and predator–prey models: a review. Theor Popul Biol 65(3):299–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buckley N, Ruxton G (2003) The resource dispersion hypothesis and the ‘future value’ of food. Trends Ecol Evol 18(8):379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burt W (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24(3):346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carbone C, Gittleman J (2002) A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295(5563):2273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carpenter F (1987) Food abundance and territoriality: to defend or not to defend? Am Zool 27(2):387–399Google Scholar
  18. de Roos A, McCauley E, Wilson W (1991) Mobility versus density-limited predator–prey dynamics on different spatial scales. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 246(1316):117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Roos A, McCauley E, Wilson W (1998) Pattern formation and the spatial scale of interaction between predators and their prey. Theor Popul Biol 53(2):108–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dieckmann U, Law R (2000) Relaxation projections and the method of moments. In: Dieckmann U, Law R, Metz JAJ (eds) The geometry of ecological interactions: symplifying spatial complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 412–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eide N, Jepsen J, Prestrud P (2004) Spatial organization of reproductive Arctic foxes Alopex lagopus: responses to changes in spatial and temporal availability of prey. J Anim Ecol 73(6):1056–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elchuk C, Wiebe K (2003) Ephemeral food resources and high conspecific densities as factors explaining lack of feeding territories in Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus). Auk 120(1):187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellner S (2001) Pair approximation for lattice models with multiple interaction scales. J Theor Biol 210(4):435–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eshel I (1983) Evolutionary and continuous stability* 1. J Theor Biol 103(1):99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferguson S, Taylor M, Born E, Rosing-Asvid A, Messier F (1999) Determinants of home range size for polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Ecol Lett 2(5):311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geritz S, Kisdi E, Meszéna G, Metz J (1998) Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol Ecol 12:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gillespie D (2007) Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics. Annu Rev Phys Chem 58:35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gittleman J, Harvey P (1982) Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10(1):57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grant J, Chapman C, Richardson K (1992) Defended versus undefended home range size of carnivores, ungulates and primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31(3):149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herfindal I, Linnell J, Odden J, Nilsen E, Andersen R (2005) Prey density, environmental productivity and home-range size in the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). J Zool 265(01):63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hosseini P (2003) How localized consumption stabilizes predator-prey systems with finite frequency of mixing. Am Nat 161(4):567–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huffaker C (1958) Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predatorprey interactions. Hilgardia 27:343–383Google Scholar
  33. Ims R (1987) Responses in spatial organization and behaviour to manipulations of the food resource in the vole Clethrionomys rufocanus. J Anim Ecol 56(2):585–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jansen V, de Roos A (2000) The role of space in reducing predator-prey cycles. The geometry of ecological interactions: simplifying spatial complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson D, Kays R, Blackwell P, Macdonald D (2002) Does the resource dispersion hypothesis explain group living? Trends Ecol Evol 17(12):563–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson D, Macdonald D, Kays R, Blackwell P (2003) Response to Revilla, and Buckley and Ruxton: the resource dispersion hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 18(8):381–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kacelnik A, Bateson M (1996) Risky theories–the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Integr Comp Biol 36(4):402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelt D, Van Vuren D (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am Nat 157(6):637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Korpimäki E, Norrdahl K (1991) Numerical and functional responses of kestrels, short-eared owls, and long-eared owls to vole densities. Ecology 72(3):814–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Law R, Murrell D, Dieckmann U (2003) Population growth in space and time: spatial logistic equations. Ecology 84(1):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lima S (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. Bioscience 48(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. López-Bao J, Palomares F, Rodríguez A, Delibes M (2010) Effects of food supplementation on home-range size, reproductive success, productivity and recruitment in a small population of Iberian lynx. Anim Conserv 13(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lopez-Sepulcre A, Kokko H (2005) Territorial defense, territory size, and population regulation. Am Nat 166(3):317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacDonald D (1983) The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301(5899):379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Macdonald D, Bacon P (1982) Fox society, contact rate and rabies epizootiology. Comp Immunol Microb 5(1–3):247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mace G, Harvey P (1983) Energetic constraints on home-range size. Am Nat 121(1):120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maher C, Lott D (1995) Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems. Anim Behav 49(6):1581–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maher C, Lott D (2000) A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within vertebrate species. Am Midl Nat 143(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maynard-Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McCauley E, Wilson W, de Roos A (1993) Dynamics of age-structured and spatially structured predator-prey interactions: individual-based models and population-level formulations. Am Nat 142(3):412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mcloughlin P, Ferguson S, Messier F (2000) Intraspecific variation in home range overlap with habitat quality: a comparison among brown bear populations. Evol Ecol 14(1):39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McNab B (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am Nat 97(894):133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Melbourne B, Chesson P (2005) Scaling up population dynamics: integrating theory and data. Oecologia 145(2):178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mitchell M, Powell R (2004) A mechanistic home range model for optimal use of spatially distributed resources. Ecol Model 177(1–2):209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitchell M, Powell R (2007) Optimal use of resources structures home ranges and spatial distribution of black bears. Anim Behav 74(2):219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moffitt E, Botsford L, Kaplan D, O’Farrell M (2009) Marine reserve networks for species that move within a home range. Ecol Appl 19(7):1835–1847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moorcroft P, Lewis M (2006) Mechanistic home range analysis. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  58. Moorcroft P, Lewis M, Crabtree R (2006) Mechanistic home range models capture spatial patterns and dynamics of coyote territories in Yellowstone. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 273(1594):1651–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morrell L, Kokko H (2005) Bridging the gap between mechanistic and adaptive explanations of territory formation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57(4):381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Murrell D (2005) Local spatial structure and predator-prey dynamics: Counterintuitive effects of prey enrichment. Am Nat 166(3):354–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Murrell D, Dieckmann U, Law R (2004) On moment closures for population dynamics in continuous space. J Theor Biol 229(3):421–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nicholls B, Racey P (2006) Contrasting home-range size and spatial partitioning in cryptic and sympatric pipistrelle bats. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61(1):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. North A, Ovaskainen O (2007) Interactions between dispersal, competition, and landscape heterogeneity. Oikos 116(7):1106–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Orians G, Pearson N (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, pp 154–177Google Scholar
  65. Ovaskainen O, Cornell S (2006) Space and stochasticity in population dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(34):12781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinaud D, Weimerskirch H (2005) Scale-dependent habitat use in a long-ranging central place predator. J Anim Ecol 74(5):852–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Richards S, Wilson W (2000) Adaptive feeding across environmental gradients and its effect on population dynamics. Theor Popul Biol 57(4):377–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmidt K (2008) Behavioural and spatial adaptation of the Eurasian lynx to a decline in prey availability. Acta Theriol 53(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schoener T (1968) Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49(1):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schoener T (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 2(1):369–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schoener T (1983) Simple models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121(5):608–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sih A (1984) The behavioral response race between predator and prey. Am Nat 123(1):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Siniff D, Jessen C (1969) A simulation model of animal movement patterns. Adv Ecol Res 6:185–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stamps J, Buechner M (1985) The territorial defense hypothesis and the ecology of insular vertebrates. Q Rev Biol 60(2):155–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tilman D, Kareiva P (1997) Spatial ecology. Princeton UPGoogle Scholar
  76. Trewhella W, Harris S, McAllister F (1988) Dispersal distance, home-range size and population density in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes): a quantitative analysis. J Appl Ecol 25(2):423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Baalen M (2000) Pair approximation for ecological interactions on different geometries. The geometry of ecological interactions: simplifying spatial complexities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 359–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Baalen M, Rand D (1998) The unit of selection in viscous populations and the evolution of altruism. J Theor Biol 193(4):631–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van Moorter B, Visscher D, Benhamou S, Börger L, Boyce M, Gaillard J (2009) Memory keeps you at home: a mechanistic model for home range emergence. Oikos 118(5):641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Village A (1982) The home range and density of kestrels in relation to vole abundance. J Anim Ecol 51(2):413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wauters L, Bertolino S, Adamo M, Dongen S, Tosi G (2005) Food shortage disrupts social organization: the case of red squirrels in conifer forests. Evol Ecol 19(4):375–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Worton B (1987) A review of models of home range for animal movement. Ecol Model 38(3):277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ydenberg R, Krebs J (1987) The tradeoff between territorial defense and foraging in the great tit (Parus major). Am Zool 27(2):337–346Google Scholar
  84. Zabel C, McKelvey K, Ward Jr J (1995) Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Can J Zool 73(3):433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zurbuchen A, Cheesman S, Klaiber J, Müller A, Hein S, Dorn S (2010) Long foraging distances impose high costs on offspring production in solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 79(3):674–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé - CNRSBeauvior-sur-niortFrance
  2. 2.Université Pierre and Marie CurieParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Genetics, Environment and EvolutionUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.CoMPLEXUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Dep. of Arctic and Marine BiologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations