Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 178, Issue 1, pp 75–87 | Cite as

Measuring individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and implications for assessing resource specialization

  • F. Joel FodrieEmail author
  • Lauren A. Yeager
  • Jonathan H. Grabowski
  • Craig A. Layman
  • Graham D. Sherwood
  • Matthew D. Kenworthy
Special Topic: Individual-level niche specialization

Abstract

Many mobile marine species are presumed to utilize a broad spectrum of habitats, but this seemingly generalist life history may arise from conspecifics specializing on distinct habitat alternatives to exploit foraging, resting/refuge, or reproductive opportunities. We acoustically tagged 34 red drum, and mapped sand, seagrass, marsh, or oyster (across discrete landscape contexts) use by each uniquely coded individual. Using 144,000 acoustic detections, we recorded differences in habitat use among red drum: proportional use of seagrass habitat ranged from 0 to 100 %, and use of oyster-bottom types also varied among fish. WIC/TNW and IS metrics (previously applied vis-à-vis diet specialization) consistently indicated that a typical red drum overlapped >70 % with population-level niche exploitation. Monte Carlo permutations showed these values were lower than expected had fish drawn from a common habitat-use distribution, but longitudinal comparisons did not provide evidence of temporally consistent individuality, suggesting that differences among individuals were plastic and not reflective of true specialization. Given the range of acoustic detections we captured (from tens to 1,000s per individual), which are substantially larger sample sizes than in many diet studies, we extended our findings by serially reducing or expanding our data in simulations to evaluate sample-size effects. We found that the results of null hypothesis testing for specialization were highly dependent on sample size, with thresholds in the relationship between sample size and associated P-values. These results highlight opportunities and potential caveats in exploring individuality in habitat use. More broadly, exploring individual specialization in fine-scale habitat use suggests that, for mobile marine species, movement behaviors over shorter (≤weeks), but not longer (≥months), timescales may serve as an underlying mechanism for other forms of resource specialization.

Keywords

Foraging theory Individual specialization Landscape context Niche variation Scieanops ocellatus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Abigail Poray and Chris Baillie for field help, and Sean Powers for use of the MAP 600 system. Don Field was instrumental in finding the aerial imagery used to create habitat maps. The Redfish Action Series fishermen and organizers were crucial in collecting red drum. We also thank Tara Gancos Crawford and Seth Newsome for organizing the special topics feature, and Nathan Lemoine for contacting us to participate. Comments from three anonymous reviewers greatly improved our manuscript. This work was funded by the North Carolina Marine Resources Fund. (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee ID: 11-241.0-A.)

Supplementary material

442_2014_3212_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 3,445 kb)

References

  1. Able KW, Fahay MP (2010) Ecology of estuarine fishes: temperate waters of the western North Atlantic. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. Araújo MS, Bolnick DI, Machado G, Giaretta AA, Dos Reis SF (2007) Using δ13C stable isotopes to quantify individual-level diet variation. Oecologia 152:643–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Araújo MS, Bolnick DI, Martinelli LA, Giaretta AA, Dos Reis SF (2009) Individual-level diet variation in four species of Brazilian frogs. J Anim Ecol 78:848–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo MS, Bolnick DI, Layman CA (2011) The ecological causes of individual specialization. Ecol Lett 14:948–958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacheler NM, Paramore LM, Burdick SM, Buckel JA, Hightower JE (2009) Variation in movement patterns of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) inferred from conventional tagging and ultrasonic telemetry. Fish Bull 107:405–419Google Scholar
  6. Bearhop S, Phillips RA, McGill R, Cherel Y, Dawson DA, Croxall JP (2006) Stable isotopes indicate sex-specific and long-term individual foraging specialization in diving seabirds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 311:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaudoin CP, Tonn WM, Prepas EE, Wassenaar LI (1999) Individual specialization and trophic adaptability of northern pike (Esox lucius): an isotope and dietary analysis. Oecologia 120:386–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolnick DI, Yang LH, Fordyce JA, Davis JM, Svanbäck R (2002) Measuring individual-level resource specialization. Ecology 83:2936–2941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolnick DI, Svanbäck R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolnick DI, Svanbäck R, Araújo MS, Persson L (2007) Comparative support for the niche variation hypothesis that more generalized populations also are more heterogeneous. Proc Nat Acad Sci 104:10075–10079CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourke P, Magnan P, Rodríguez MA (1997) Individual variation in habitat use and morphology in brook charr. J Fish Biol 51:783–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dresser BK, Kneib RT (2007) Site fidelity and movement patterns of wild subadult red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (Linnaeus), within a salt marsh-dominated estuarine landscape. Fish Manage Ecol 14:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elton C (1927) Animal ecology. Sedwick and Jackson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grabowski JH, Hughes AR, Kimbro DL, Dolan MA (2005) How habitat setting influences restored oyster reef communities. Ecology 86:1926–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammerschlag-Peyer CM, Layman CA (2010) Intrapopulation variation in habitat use by two abundant coastal fish species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 415:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenworthy MD (2011) Effects of temporal variation in predation risk on predator-prey interactions. Master’s thesis, University of South Alabama, MobileGoogle Scholar
  19. Kerr LA, Secor DH, Piccoli PM (2009) Partial migration of fishes as exemplified by the estuarine-dependent white perch. Fisheries 34:114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kobler A, Klefoth T, Mehner T, Arlinghaus R (2009) Coexistence of behavioural types in an aquatic top predator: a response to resource limitation? Oecologica 161:837–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luczkovich JJ, Pullinger RC, Johnson SE, Sprague MW (2008) Identifying the critical spawning habitats of sciaenids using passive acoustics. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:576–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Micheli F, Peterson CH (1999) Estuarine vegetated habitats as corridors for predator movements. Cons Biol 13:869–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paterson JE, Steinberg BD, Litzgus JD (2012) Generally specialized or especially general? Habitat selection by snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in central Ontario. Can J Zool 90:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petraitis PS (1979) Likelihood measures of niche breadth and overlap. Ecology 60:703–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Post DM, Palkovacs EP (2009) Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology: interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:1629–1640CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/
  28. Ralston KR, Wainwright PC (1997) Functional consequences of trophic specialization in pufferfishes. Funct Ecol 11:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roughgarden J (1972) Evolution of niche width. Am Nat 106:683–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sackett DK, Able KW, Grothues TM (2007) Dynamics of summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, seasonal migrations based on ultrasonic telemetry. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 74:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scharf FS, Schlight KK (2000) Feeding habits of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in Galveston Bay, Texas: seasonal diet variation and predator-prey size relationships. Estuaries 23:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schoener TW (1968) The Anolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49:704–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sherwood GD, Grabowski JH (2010) Exploring the life-history implications of colour variation in offshore Gulf of Maine cod (Gadus morhua). ICES J Mar Sci 67:1640–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sherwood GD, Pazzia I, Moeser A, Hontela A, Rasmussen JB (2002) Shifting gears: enzymatic evidence for the energetic advantage of switching diet in wild-living fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Starck WA, Schroeder RE (1971) Investigations on the gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus. University of Miami Press, Coral GablesGoogle Scholar
  36. Svanbäck R, Eklöv P (2002) Effects of habitat and food resources on morphology and ontogenetic growth trajectories in perch. Oecologia 131:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Szedlmayer ST, Able KW (1993) Ultrasonic telemetry of age-0 summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, movements in a southern New Jersey estuary. Copeia 3:728–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tabashnik BE, Wheelock H, Rainbolt JD, Watt WB (1981) Individual variation in oviposition preference in the butterfly, Colias eurytheme. Oecologia 50:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomson JA, Heithaus MR, Burkholder DA, Vaudo JJ, Wirsing AJ, Dill LM (2012) Site specialists, diet generalists? Isotopic variation, site fidelity, and foraging by loggerhead turtles in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 453:84–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zaccarelli N, Bolnick DI, Mancinelli G (2013) RInSp: an r package for the analysis of individual specialization in resource use. Meth Ecol Evol 4:1018–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Joel Fodrie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lauren A. Yeager
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jonathan H. Grabowski
    • 3
  • Craig A. Layman
    • 4
  • Graham D. Sherwood
    • 5
  • Matthew D. Kenworthy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Marine Sciences, Institute of Marine SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillMorehead CityUSA
  2. 2.National Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterAnnapolisUSA
  3. 3.Marine Science CenterNortheastern UniversityNahantUSA
  4. 4.Department of Applied EcologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  5. 5.Gulf of Maine Research InstitutePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations