Advertisement

How optimal foragers should respond to habitat changes: on the consequences of habitat conversion

  • Vincent CalcagnoEmail author
  • Frédéric Hamelin
  • Ludovic Mailleret
  • Frédéric Grognard
Original Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

The marginal value theorem (MVT) provides a framework to predict how habitat modifications related to the distribution of resourcesover patches should impact the realized fitness of individuals and their optimal rate of movement (or patch residence times) across the habitat. The MVT theory has focused on the consequences of changing the shape of the gain functions in some patches, describing for instance, patch enrichment. However, an alternative form of habitat modification is habitat conversion, whereby patches are converted from one existing type to another (e.g., closed habitat to open habitat). In such a case, the set of gain functions existing in the habitat does not change, only their relative frequencies does. This case however has received comparatively little attention. Here we analyze mathematically the consequences of habitat conversion under the MVT. We study how realized fitness and the average rate of movement should respond to changes in the frequency distribution of patch-types and how they should covary. We further compare the response of optimal and non-plastic foragers. We find that the initial pattern of patch exploitation in a habitat, characterized by the regression slope of patch yields over residence times, can help predict the qualitative responses of fitness and movement rate following habitat conversion. We also find that for some habitat conversion patterns, optimal and non-plastic foragers exhibit qualitatively different responses, and that adaptive foragers can have opposite responses in the short- and long-term following habitat conversion. We suggest taking into account behavioral responses may help better understand the ecological consequences of habitat conversion.

Keywords

Behaviour Fitness Marginal value theorem Movement Patchy habitats Theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by INRA and Université Côte d’Azur (IDEX JEDI).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Arditi R, Dacorogna B (1988) Optimal foraging on arbitrary food distributions and the definition of habitat patches. Am Nat: 837–846Google Scholar
  2. Bowler D, Benton T (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80(2):205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80(2):385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calcagno V (2018) The marginal value theorem in a nutshell. In: Fath BD (ed) Encyclopedia of ecology. 2nd edn. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Calcagno V, Grognard F, Hamelin FM, Wajnberg É, Mailleret L (2014a) The functional response predicts the effect of resource distribution on the optimal movement rate of consumers. Ecol Lett 17(12):1570–1579Google Scholar
  6. Calcagno V, Mailleret L, Wajnberg É, Grognard F (2014b) How optimal foragers should respond to habitat changes: a reanalysis of the marginal value theorem. J Math Biol 69(5):1237– 1265Google Scholar
  7. Charnov E (1976) Optimal foraging the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9(2):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnov E, Parker G (1995) Dimensionless invariants from foraging theory’s marginal value theorem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92(5):1446–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charnov EL, Orians GH (1973) Optimal foraging: some theoretical explorations. unpublishedGoogle Scholar
  10. Faust CL, McCallum HI, Bloomfield LS, Gottdenker NL, Gillespie TR, Torney CJ, Dobson AP, Plowright RK (2018) Pathogen spillover during land conversion. Ecol Lett 21(4):471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH, Roberts C (2005) Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol Lett 8(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotler BP (1984) Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecol 65(3):689–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laidlaw RK (2000) Effects of habitat disturbance and protected areas on mammals of peninsular malaysia. Conserv Biol 14(6):1639–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1985) Optimal foraging and learning. J Theor Biol 117(2):231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mouquet N, Gravel D, Massol F, Calcagno V (2012) Extending the concept of keystone species to communities and ecosystems. Ecol LettGoogle Scholar
  16. Nonacs P (2001) State dependent behavior and the marginal value theorem. Behav Ecol 12(1):71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nowakowski AJ, Watling JI, Thompson ME, Brusch IVGA, Catenazzi A, Whitfield SM, Kurz DJ, Suárez-Mayorga Á, Aponte-Gutiérrez A, Donnelly MA et al (2018) Thermal biology mediates responses of amphibians and reptiles to habitat modification. Ecol Lett 21(3):345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Presley SJ, Willig MR, Castro-Arellano I, Weaver SC (2009) Effects of habitat conversion on temporal activity patterns of phyllostomid bats in lowland amazonian rain forest. J Mammal 90(1):210–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stephens D, Krebs J (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Stephens SE, Walker JA, Blunck DR, Jayaraman A, Naugle DE, Ringelman JK, Smith AJ (2008) Predicting risk of habitat conversion in native temperate grasslands. Conserv Biol 22(5):1320–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tiedeken EJ, Egan PA, Stevenson PC, Wright GA, Brown MJ, Power EF, Farrell I, Matthews SM, Stout JC (2016) Nectar chemistry modulates the impact of an invasive plant on native pollinators. Funct Ecol 30(6):885–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371(6492): 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement. Sinauer assoc. Sunderland (mass.)Google Scholar
  24. Wajnberg É (2006) Time allocation strategies in insect parasitoids: from ultimate predictions to proximate behavioral mechanisms. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60(5):589–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Calcagno
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frédéric Hamelin
    • 2
  • Ludovic Mailleret
    • 1
    • 3
  • Frédéric Grognard
    • 3
  1. 1.Université Côte d’Azur, INRA, CNRS, ISASophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.INRA, Agrocampus Ouest, Université de Rennes 1, IGEPPRennesFrance
  3. 3.Université Côte d’Azur, Inria, INRA, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Biocore teamSophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations