Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 172, Issue 3, pp 725–735 | Cite as

A piecewise linear modeling approach for testing competing theories of habitat selection: an example with mule deer in northern winter ranges

  • Jeffrey A. ManningEmail author
  • Edward O. Garton
Population ecology - Original research

Abstract

Habitat selection fundamentally drives the distribution of organisms across landscapes; density-dependent habitat selection (DDHS) is considered a central component of ecological theories explaining habitat use and population regulation. A preponderance of DDHS theories is based on ideal distributions, such that organisms select habitat according to either the ideal free, despotic, or pre-emptive distributions. Models that can be used to simultaneously test competing DDHS theories are desirable to help improve our understanding of habitat selection. We developed hierarchical, piecewise linear models that allow for simultaneous testing of DDHS theories and accommodate densities from multiple habitats and regional populations, environmental covariates, and random effects. We demonstrate the use of these models with data on mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) abundance and net energy costs in different snow depths within winter ranges of five regional populations in western Idaho, USA. Regional population density explained 40 % of the variation in population growth, and we found that deer were ideal free in winter ranges. Deer occupied habitats with lowest net energy costs at higher densities and at a higher rate than compared to habitats with intermediate and high energy costs. The proportion of a regional population in low energy cost habitat the previous year accounted for a significant amount of variation in population growth (17 %), demonstrating the importance of winter habitat selection in regulating deer populations. These linear models are most appropriate for empirical data collected from centralized habitat patches within the local range of a species where individuals are either year-round residents or migratory (but have already arrived from migration).

Keywords

Density dependence Habitat selection Idaho Ideal free Mule deer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the many IDFG biologists who shared detailed descriptions of their mule deer aerial sightability survey methods. We especially thank Caren Goldberg and Jon Horne for their creative suggestions about model development. This manuscript greatly benefitted from comments and advice by Jeremy Baumgardt, Steve Bunting, Jim Peek, Harry Jageman, and Pete Zager, and reviews from D. Morris, an anonymous reviewer, and the handling editor. This research was supported by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (grant W-160-R-32-55-2), DeVlieg Foundation, University of Idaho’s C. C. and Mary Davidson Scholarship, and a University of Idaho Educational Instructorship held by Jeff Manning.

References

  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petran B, Csaki F (eds) International symposium on information theory. 2nd edn. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. Andrewartha HC, Birch IC (1954) The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur SM, Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Garner GW (1996) Assessing habitat selection when availability changes. Ecology 77:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop CJ, Unsworth JW, Garton EO (2005) Mule deer survival among adjacent populations in southwest Idaho. J Wildl Manage 69:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JL (1969) The buffer effect and productivity in tit populations. Am Nat 103:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretical approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) (1997) Ecological regions of North America: towards a common perspective. CEC, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  9. Connolly GE (1981) Limiting factors and population regulation. In: Wallmo OC (ed) Mule and black-tailed deer in North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 245–286Google Scholar
  10. Dobson AJ (2002) An introduction to generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  11. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2002) ArcGIS 9.2. ESRI, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Falkowski MJ, Evans JS, Martinuzzi S, Gessler PG, Hudak AT (2009) Characterizing forest succession with lidar data: an evaluation for the inland northwest, USA. Remote Sens Environ 113:946–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbert PF, Wallmo OC, Gill RB (1970) Effect of snow depth on mule deer in Middle Park, Colorado. J Wildl Manage 34:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillis DM, Kramer DL, Bell G (1986) Talyor’s power law as a consequence of Fretwell’s ideal free distribution. J Theor Biol 123:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halpern BS, Gaines SD, Warner RR (2005) Habitat size, recruitment, and longevity as factors limiting population size in stage-structured species. Am Nat 165:82–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hessburg PF, Agee JK (2003) An environmental narrative of inland Northwest United States forests, 1800–2000. For Ecol Manage 178:23–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson MD (2005) Habitat quality: a brief review for wildlife biologists. Trans West Wildl Soc 41:31–41Google Scholar
  21. Jonzén N, Wilcox C, Possingham HP (2004) Habitat selection and population regulation in temporally fluctuating environments. Am Nat 164:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at different scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83:530–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knight TW, Morris DW (1996) How many habitats do landscapes contain? Ecology 77:1756–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krebs CJ (2001) Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance, 5th edn. Cummings, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. Laundré JW, Hernández L, Clark SG (2006) Impact of puma predation on the decline and recovery of a mule deer population in southeastern Idaho. Can J Zool 84:1555–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leopold A, Riney T, McCain R, Tevis L Jr (1951) The jawbone deer herd. California Division of Fish and Game Bulletin 4, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  28. Lingle S (2002) Coyote predation and habitat segregation of white-tailed deer and mule deer. Ecology 83:2037–2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manning JA (2010) Population dynamics of rocky mountain elk and mule deer: competition, habitat selection, wolf predation, and predictions under climate change. PhD dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, pp 1–147Google Scholar
  30. Manning JA, Garton EO (2012) Reconstructing historical snow depth surfaces to evaluate changes in critical demographic rates and habitat components of snow-dependent and snow-restricted species. Methods Ecol Evol 3:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1990) State-dependent ideal fiee distributions. Evol Ecol 4:298–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moody AL, Houston AI, McNamara JM (1996) Ideal free distributions under predation risk. Behav Ecol Socio Biol 38:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris DW (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure. Evol Ecol 2:253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morris DW (1994) Habitat matching: alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol Ecol 8:387–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris DW (2003) Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1989) Applied linear regression models, 2nd edn. Irwin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  37. Nicholson MC, Bowyer RT, Kie JG (1997) Habitat selection and survival of mule deer: tradeoffs associated with migration. J Mammal 78:483–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parker GA, Sutherland WJ (1986) Ideal free distributions when individuals differ in competitive ability: phenotype-limited ideal free models. Anim Behav 34:1222–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker KL, Robbins CT, Hanley TH (1984) Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. J Wildl Manage 48:474–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peek JM, Dennis B, Hershey T (2002) Predicting population trends of mule deer. J Wildl Manage 66:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM, Debroy S, Sarkar D, The R Core Team (2008) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-89Google Scholar
  42. Pulliam HR, Danielson BJ (1991) Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am Nat (Suppl) 137:S50–S66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  44. Recer GM, Blanckenhorn WU, Newman JA, Tuttle EM, Withiam ML, Caraco T (1987) Temporal resource variability and the habitat-matching rule. Evol Ecol 1:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ricker WE (1954) Stock and recruitment. J Fish Res Bd Can 11:559–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenzweig ML (1991) Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism. Am Nat (Suppl) 137:S5–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sawyer H, Nielson RM, Lindzey F, McDonald LL (2006) Winter habitat selection of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. J Wildl Manage 70:396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schoener TW (1983) Simple models of optimal feeding-territory size: a reconciliation. Am Nat 121:608–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shenbrot G (2004) Habitat selection in a seasonally variable environment: test of the isodar theory with the fat sand rat, Psammomys obesus, in the Negev Desert, Israel. Oikos 106:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shenk TM, White GC, Burnham KP (1998) Sampling-variance effects on detecting density dependence from temporal trends in natural populations. Ecol Monogr 86:445–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Reid ML (2005) Search costs and habitat selection by dispersers. Ecology 86:510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sutherland WJ (1996) From individual behavior to population ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Svärdsson G (1949) Competition and habitat selection in birds. Oikos 1:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Toms JD, Lesperance ML (2003) Piecewise regression: a tool for identifying ecological thresholds. Ecology 84:2034–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner GF, Pitcher TJ (1986) Attack abatement: a model for group protection by combined avoidance and dilution. Am Nat 128:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Unsworth JW, Leban FA, Leptich JJ, Garton EO, Zager P (1994) Aerial survey: user’s manual and practical tips for designing and conducting aerial big game surveys. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, BoiseGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallmo OC, Gill RB (1971) Snow, winter distribution and population dynamics of mule deer in the central Rocky Mountains. In: Haugen AO (ed) Snow and ice in relation to wildlife and recreation symposium proceedings. Iowa State University, Ames, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  58. Walmo OC (1981) Mule and black-tailed deer distribution and habitats. In: Walmo OC (ed) Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  59. Weckerly FW (1992) Territoriality in North American deer: a call for a common definition. Wildl Soc Bull 20:228–231Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Fish and Wildlife ResourcesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations