Abstract
Landscape structure can influence the fine-scale movement behavior of dispersing animals, which ultimately may influence ecological patterns and processes at broader scales. Functional grain refers to the finest scale at which an organism responds to spatial heterogeneity among patches and extends to the limits of its perceptual range. To determine the functional grain of a model insect, red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum), we examined its movement behavior in response to experimental flour landscapes. Landscape structure was varied by manipulating habitat abundance (0%, 10%, 30%, and 100%) and grain size of patches (fine-2 × 2 cm, intermediate-5 × 5 cm, and coarse-10 × 10 cm) in 50 × 50 cm landscapes. Pathway metrics indicated that beetles used a similar proportion of all landscape types. Several pathway metrics indicated a graded response from the fine to the coarse grain landscape. Lacunarity analysis of beetle pathways indicated a non-linear change in space use between the fine and intermediate landscapes and the coarse-grained landscape. Beetles moved more slowly and tortuously (with many turns), and remained longer in both the overall landscape and individual patches, in fine-grained compared to coarse-grained landscapes. Our research demonstrates how detailed examination of movement pathways and measures of lacunarity can be useful in determining functional grain. Spatially explicit, organism-centered studies focusing on behavioral responses to different habitat configurations can serve as an important first step to identify behavioral rules of movement that may ultimately lead to more accurate predictions of space use in landscapes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366. doi:10.2307/3545823
Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22:1117–1129. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9108-4
Bell WJ (1991) Searching behaviour: the behavioural ecology of finding resources. Chapman and Hall, London
Bond AB (1980) Optimal foraging in a uniform habitat: the search mechanism of the green lacewing. Anim Behav 28:10–19. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80003-0
Campbell JF, Runnion C (2003) Patch exploitation by female red flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum. J Insect Sci 3:20
Conradt L, Roper TJ (2006) Nonrandom movement behavior at habitat boundaries in two butterfly species: implications for dispersal. Ecology 87:125–132. doi:10.1890/05-0413
Conradt L, Zollner PA, Roper TJ, Frank K, Thomas CD (2003) Foray search: an effective systematic dispersal strategy in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 161:905–915. doi:10.1086/375298
Gardner RH (1999) RULE: map generation and a spatial analysis program. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp 280–303
Good NE (1936) The flour beetles of the genus Tribolium. USDA Tech Bull 5:27–28
Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis. Can J Zool 80:24–35. doi:10.1139/z01-196
Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.13977.x
Heinz SK, Strand E (2006) Adaptive patch searching strategies in fragmented landscapes. Evol Ecol 20:113–130. doi:10.1007/s10682-005-5378-y
Heinz SK, Wissel C, Frank K (2006) The viability of metapopulations: individual dispersal behaviour matters. Landsc Ecol 21:77–89. doi:10.1007/s10980-005-0148-3
Ives AR (1995) Spatial heterogeneity and host-parasitoid population dynamics: do we need to study behavior? Oikos 74:366–376. doi:10.2307/3545981
Jonsen ID, Taylor PD (2000) Fine-scale movement behaviors of calopterygid damselflies are influenced by landscape structure: an experimental manipulation. Oikos 88:553–562. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880312.x
Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260
Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)81094-9
Mandelbrot BB (1983) The fractal geometry of nature. W. H. Freeman, New York, NY
McIntyre NE, Wiens JA (2000) A novel use of the lacunarity index to discern landscape function. Landsc Ecol 15:313–321. doi:10.1023/A:1008148514268
Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950116.x
Morales JM, Ellner SP (2002) Scaling up animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: the importance of behavior. Ecology 83:240–247
Olden JD, Schooley JD, Monroe J, Poff NL (2004) Context-dependent perceptual ranges and their relevance to animal movements in landscapes. J Anim Ecol 73:1190–1194. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00889.x
Plotnick RE, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1993) Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landsc Ecol 8:201–211. doi:10.1007/BF00125351
Roitberg BD, Mangel M (1997) Individuals on the landscape: behavior can mitigate landscape differences among habitats. Oikos 80:234–240. doi:10.2307/3546591
Russell RE, Swihart RK, Feng Z (2003) Population consequences of movement decisions in a patchy landscape. Oikos 103:142–152. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12418.x
SAS Institute, Inc (2002) SAS version 9.1. Cary, NC
Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2003) Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12490.x
Schtickzelle N, Joiris A, Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2007) Quantitative analysis of changes in movement behavior within and outside habitat in a specialist butterfly. BMC Evol Biol 7:4. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-4
Stamps JA, Buechner M, Krishnan VV (1987) The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Am Nat 129:533–552. doi:10.1086/284656
Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573. doi:10.2307/3544927
Turchin P (1989) Population consequences of aggregative movement. J Anim Ecol 58:75–100. doi:10.2307/4987
Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: Routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2005.03.005
Wiens JA (2001) The landscape concept of dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 96–109
Wiens JA, Stenseth NC, Van Horne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380. doi:10.2307/3544931
Wiens JA, Schooley RL, Weeks RD Jr (1997) Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78:257–264. doi:10.2307/3546292
With KA (1994) Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure. Landsc Ecol 9:25–36. doi:10.1007/BF00135076
With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459. doi:10.2307/2265819
With KA, Crist TO (1996) Translating across scales: simulating species distributions as the aggregate response of individuals to heterogeneity. Ecol Modell 93:125–137. doi:10.1016/0304-3800(95)00219-7
With KA, King AW (1999) Dispersal success and fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landsc Ecol 14:73–82. doi:10.1023/A:1008030215600
With KA, Cadaret SJ, Davis C (1999) Movement responses to patch structure in experimental fractal landscapes. Ecology 80:1340–1353
With KA, Pavuk DM, Worchuck JL, Oates RK, Fisher JL (2002) Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol Appl 12:52–65. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0052:TEOLSO]2.0.CO;2
Zollner PA, Lima SL (1997) Landscape-level perceptual abilities in white-footed mice: perceptual range and the detection of forested habitat. Oikos 80:51–60. doi:10.2307/3546515
Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movements. Ecology 80:1019–1030
Zollner PA, Lima SL (2005) Behavioral tradeoffs when dispersing across patchy landscape. Oikos 108:121. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13711.x
Acknowledgements
We thank David Margolies, J.P. Michaud, and Michael Toews for reviewing earlier drafts of this manuscript. We also thank Michel Baguette and an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions to improve this manuscript. This work was funded in part by USDA/CSREES (RAMP) under Agreement No. 2005-51101-02358. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or Kansas State University. This is Contribution No. 08-275-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Romero, S., Campbell, J.F., Nechols, J.R. et al. Movement behavior in response to landscape structure: the role of functional grain. Landscape Ecol 24, 39–51 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9278-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9278-8