Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 189–202 | Cite as

Towards a general formalization of encounter rates in ecology

  • Eliezer Gurarie
  • Otso Ovaskainen
Original Paper

Abstract

Although encounters between organisms are fundamental to many ecological processes, a general theory of encounters that accounts for random movements and probabilistic events has yet to be proposed. We present a framework for examining probabilistic encounters between arbitrarily moving searchers and immobile targets in continuous space and time. We define and contrast first encounter rates and mean encounter rates, which are generally not equal and depend on several properties of the process, including movement behaviors, the spatial scales of the encounter kernel, spatial distribution and birth–death dynamics of targets, and whether the encounters are destructive. Based on these considerations, we propose a taxonomy of encounter processes and discuss their functional relationships. Analytical approximations in several special cases are derived, leading to inference about general patterns. We identify, for example, cases (nondestructive, mean encounters) in which encounter rates are completely independent of movement velocity or tortuosity, and we quantify the dependence for cases (e.g., hard, first encounters and destructive encounters in a dynamic landscape) where there is a relationship. The analytical results lead to general qualitative conclusions, while the mathematical formalization and taxonomic organization provides a framework for studying and contrasting a broad range of encounter processes in ecology.

Keywords

Encounter rates Animal movement Encounter kernel Characteristic scales  Correlated velocity movement Mean field perturbation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jim Anderson and Finn Laidre for inspiring many of the ideas in this manuscript. Len Thomas, Tiago Splitter and two anonymous reviewers provided close readings and useful suggestions. O.O. was funded by the Academy of Finland (grant 129636) and the European Research Council (ERC Starting Grant 205905).

Supplementary material

12080_2012_170_MOESM1_ESM.tex (17 kb)
(TEX 17.0 KB)

References

  1. Anderson J (2010) Ratio-and predator-dependent functional forms for predators optimally foraging in patches. Am Nat 175:240–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JJ, Gurarie E, Zabel RW (2005) Mean free-path length theory of predator–prey interactions: application to juvenile Salmon migration. Ecol Model 186:196–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avgar T, Kuefler D, Fryxell J (2011) Linking rates of diffusion and consumption in relation to resources. Am Nat 178:182–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartumeus F, Da Luz MGE, Viswanathan GM, Catalan J (2005) Animal search strategies: a quantitative random-walk analysis. Ecology 86:3078–3087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartumeus F, Catalan J, Viswanathan G, Raposo E, da Luz M (2008) The influence of turning angles on the success of non-oriented animal searches. J Theor Biol 252:43–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg HC (1983) Random walks in biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Block B, Jonsen I, Jorgensen S, Winship A, Shaffer S, Bograd S et al (2011) Tracking apex marine predator movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature 475:86–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borchers D, Efford M (2008) Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics 64:377–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boukal D, Berec L (2002) Single-species models of the Allee effect: extinction boundaries, sex ratios and mate encounters. J Theor Biol 218:375–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2007) Advanced distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Clausius R (1859) On the mean length of the paths described by the separate molecules of gaseous bodies on the occurrence of molecular motion: together with some other remarks on the mechanical theory of heat. Philos Mag 17:81–91Google Scholar
  12. Codling EA, Plank MJ, Benhamou S (2008) Random walk models in biology (review). J Roy Soc Interface 5:813–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans GT (1989) The encounter speed of moving predator and prey. J Plankton Res 11:415–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerritsen J, Strickler J (1977) Encounter probabilities and community structure in zooplankton: a mathematical model. J Fish Res Board Can 34:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gurarie E, Anderson JJ, Zabel RW (2009) Incorporating population heterogeneity into analysis of animal dispersal and movement. Ecology 90:2233–2242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurarie E, Ovaskainen O (2011) Characteristic spatial and temporal scales unify models of animal movement. Am Nat 178:113–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hapca S, Crawford J, Young I (2009) Anomalous diffusion of heterogeneous populations characterized by normal diffusion at the individual level. J Roy Soc Interface 6:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison P, Hanski I, Ovaskainen O (2011) Bayesian state-space modeling of metapopulation dynamics in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Ecol Monogr 81:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heinz SK, Conradt L, Wissel C, Frank K (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: deriving a practical formula for patch accessibility. Landsc Ecol 20:83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchinson J, Waser P (2007) Use, misuse and extensions of the “ideal gas” models of animal movement. Biol Rev 82:335–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James A, Pitchford J, Plank M (2010) Efficient or inaccurate? Analytical and numerical modelling of random search strategies. Bull Math Biol 72:896–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James A, Plank M, Brown R et al (2008) Optimizing the encounter rate in biological interactions: ballistic versus Lévy versus Brownian strategies. Phys Rev E 78:51128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kareiva PM, Shigesada N (1983) Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56:234–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maxwell J (1860) Illustrations of the dynamical theory of gases: part 1. On the motions and collisions of perfectly elastic spheres. Philos Mag 19:19–32Google Scholar
  25. McKenzie H, Lewis M, Merrill E (2009) First passage time analysis of animal movement and insights into the functional response. Bull Math Biol 71:107–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molnár P, Derocher A, Lewis M, Taylor M (2008) Modelling the mating system of polar bears: a mechanistic approach to the Allee effect. Proc R Soc B 275:217–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morales JM, Haydon DT, Frair J, Holsinger KE, Fryxell JM (2004) Extracting more out of relocation data: building movement models as mixtures of random walks. Ecology 85(9):2436–2445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Brien J, Evans B, Browman H (1989) Flexible search tactics and efficient foraging in saltatory searching animals. Oecologia 80:100–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Okubo A (1980) Diffusion and ecological problems: modern perspectives. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Ovaskainen O (2008) Analytical and numerical tools for diffusion-based movement models. Theor Popul Biol 2:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ovaskainen O, Cornell S (2006a) Asymptotically exact analysis of stochastic metapopulation dynamics with explicit spatial structure. Theor Popul Biol 69:13–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ovaskainen O, Cornell S (2006b) Space and stochasticity in population dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:12781–12786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ovaskainen O, Rekola H, Meyke E, Arjas E (2008) Bayesian methods for analyzing movements in heterogeneous landscapes from mark-recapture data. Ecology 89:542–554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patlak C (1953a) A mathematical contribution to the study of orientation of organisms. Bull Math Biophys 15:431–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patlak C (1953b) Random walk with persistence and external bias. Bull Math Biophys 15:311–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patterson T, Thomas L, Wilcox C, Ovaskainen O, Matthiopoulos J (2008) State–space models of individual animal movement. Trends Ecol Evol 23:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petrovskii S, Morozov A (2009) Dispersal in a statistically structured population: fat tails revisited. Am Nat 173:278–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Redner S (2001) A guide to first-passage processes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roland J, Keyghobadi N, Fownes S (2000) Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81:1642–1653Google Scholar
  40. Royle JA, Kéry M, Guélat J (2011) Spatial capture-recapture models for search-encounter data. Methods in Ecol Evol 2:602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skellam JG (1951) Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika 38:196–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Stephens D, Brown J, Ydenberg R (2007) Foraging: behavior and ecology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  44. Wirsing A, Cameron K, Heithaus M (2010) Spatial responses to predators vary with prey escape mode. Anim Behav 79:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.National Marine Mammal LaboratoryNOAA FisheriesSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations