Summary
Two predictions of the ideal free distribution model, a null hypothesis of habitat selection, were examined using free-ranging muskrats. We rejected the prediction that the proportion of the animals found in each of five habitats was independent of population size. Data on over-winter occupancy of muskrat dwellings tend also to refute the prediction of equal fitness reward among habitats. Habitat type and water-level had a profound effect on the suitability of a site for settlement. We concluded that the observed pattern of muskrat distribution followed more closely an ideal despotic distribution where some individuals benefited from a higher fitness because of resource monopolization. Current theories of density-dependent habitat selection, which assume an ideal free distribution, would not apply to muskrats and possibly to many other mammal species.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahams MV (1989) Foraging guppies and the ideal free distribution: the influence of information on patch choice. Ethology 82:116–126
Boutin S, Birkenholz DE (1987) Muskrat and round-tailed muskrat. In: Novak M, Baker JA, Obbard ME, Malloch B (eds) Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association, North Bay, Ontario, pp 315–324
Caley MJ (1987) Dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in muskrats. Anim Behav 35:1225–1233
Cerri RD, Fraser DF (1983) Predation and risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicting demands. Am Nat 121:552–561
Clough GC (1987) Ecology of island muskrats, Ondatra zibethicus, adapted to upland habitat. Can Field-Nat 101:63–69
Danell K (1978) Intra-and interannual changes in habitat selection by the muskrat. J Wildl Manage 42:540–549
Donohue RW (1966) Muskrat reproduction in areas of controlled and uncontrolled water-level units. J Wildl Manage 30:320–326
Erickson HR (1963) Reproduction, growth, and movement of muskrats inhabiting small water areas in New York State. NY Fish Game J 10:90–117
Errington PL (1956) Factors limiting higher vertebrate populations. Science 124:304–307
Errington PL (1963) Muskrat populations. Iowa State University Press, Ames
Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36
Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard: test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68:1856–1862
Gillis DM, Kramer DL (1987) Ideal interference distributions: population density and patch use by zebrafish. Anim Behav 35:1875–1882
Godin JG, Keenleyside MHA (1984) Foraging on patchily distributed prey by a cichlid fish (Teleostei, Cichlidae): a test of the ideal free distribution theory. Anim Behav 32:120–131
Goss-Custard JD (1980) Competition for food and interference amongst waders. Ardea 68:31–52
Harper DGC (1982) Competitive foraging in mallards: ‘ideal free’ ducks. Anim Behav 30:575–584
Holmes WG (1984) Predation risk and foraging behavior of the hoary marmot in Alaska. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:293–301
Holomuzki JR (1986) Predator avoidance and diet patterns of microhabitat use by larval tiger salamanders. Ecology 67:737–748
MacArthur RA (1978) Winter movements and home range of the muskrat. Can Field-Nat 92:345–349
Milinski M (1984) Competitive resource sharing: an experimental test of a learning rule for ESSs. Anim Behav 32:233–242
Morris DW (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure. Evol Ecol 2:253–269
Morris DW (1989) Density-dependent habitat selection: testing the theory with fitness data. Evol Ecol 3:80–94
Neter J, Wasserman W (1974) Applied linear statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood
Neu CW, Byers CR, Peek JM (1974) A technique for analysis of utilization-availability data. J Wildl Manage 38:541–545
Ostfeld RS (1985) Limiting resources and territoriality in microtine rodents. Am Nat 126:1–15
Ostfeld RS, Klosterman LL (1986) Demographic substructure in a California vole population inhabiting a patchy environment. J Mamm 67:693–704
Ostfeld RS, Lidicker WZ, Heske EJ (1985) The relationship between habitat heterogeneity, space use, and demography in a population of California voles. Oikos 45:433–442
Parker GA (1978) Searching for mates. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral Ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 214–244
Proulx G, Gilbert FF (1983) The ecology of the muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus at Luther Marsh, Ontario. Can Field-Nat 97:377–390
Proulx G, McDonnell JA, Gilbert FF (1987) The effect of water level fluctuations on muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus, predation by mink, Mustela vison. Can Field-Nat 101:89–92
Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661
Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z (1985) Detecting density-dependent habitat selection. Am Nat 126:405–417
Sutherland WJ (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution. J Anim Ecol 52:821–828
Sutherland WJ, Parker GA (1985) Distribution of unequal competitors. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 255–273
Stenseth NC (1980) Spatial heterogeneity and population stability: some evolutionary consequences. Oikos 35:165–184
Vance RR (1984) The effect of dispersal on population stability in one-species, discrete-space population growth models. Am Nat 123:230–254
Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittelbach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548
Werner EE, Hall DJ (1988) Ontogenetic habitat shifts in bluegill: the foraging rate-predation risk trade-off. Ecology 69:1352–1366
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Messier, F., Virgl, J.A. & Marinelli, L. Density-dependent habitat selection in muskrats: a test of the ideal free distribution model. Oecologia 84, 380–385 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00329763
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00329763