Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 341–355 | Cite as

Integrating individual search and navigation behaviors in mechanistic movement models

Original paper

Abstract

Understanding complex movement behaviors via mechanistic models is one key challenge in movement ecology. We built a theoretical simulation model using evolutionarily trained artificial neural networks (ANNs) wherein individuals evolve movement behaviors in response to resource landscapes on which they search and navigate. We distinguished among non-oriented movements in response to proximate stimuli, oriented movements utilizing perceptual cues from distant targets, and memory mechanisms that assume prior knowledge of a target’s location and then tested the relevance of these three movement behaviors in relation to size of resource patches, predictability of resource landscapes, and the occurrence of movement barriers. Individuals were more efficient in locating resources under larger patch sizes and predictable landscapes when memory was advantageous. However, memory was also frequently used in unpredictable landscapes with intermediate patch sizes to systematically search the entire spatial domain, and because of this, we suggest that memory may be important in explaining super-diffusion observed in many empirical studies. The sudden imposition of movement barriers had the greatest effect under predictable landscapes and temporarily eliminated the benefits of memory. Overall, we demonstrate how movement behaviors that are linked to certain cognitive abilities can be represented by state variables in ANNs and how, by altering these state variables, the relevance of different behaviors under different spatiotemporal resource dynamics can be tested. If adapted to fit empirical movement paths, methods described here could help reveal behavioral mechanisms of real animals and predict effects of anthropogenic landscape changes on animal movement.

Keywords

Individual-based models Evolutionary programming Emergent behavior Animal movement Search Navigation 

Supplementary material

12080_2010_81_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.9 mb)
ESM 1(PDF 1927 kb)

References

  1. Alerstam T (2006) Conflicting evidence about long-distance animal navigation. Science 313:791–794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armsworth PR, Roughgarden JE (2005) The impact of directed versus random movement on population dynamics and biodiversity patterns. Am Nat 165:449–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey DW, Gross J, Laca E, Rittenhouse L, Coughenour M, Swift D, Sims P (1996) Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. J Range Manage 49:386–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-David S, Bar-David I, Cross P, Ryan S, Knechtel C, Getz W (2009) Methods for assessing movement path recursion with application to African buffalo in South Africa. Ecology 90:2467–2479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartumeus F (2009) Behavioral intermittence, Levy patterns, and randomness in animal movement. Oikos 118:488–494Google Scholar
  6. Bartumeus FM, Da Luz G, Viswanathan G, Catalan J (2005) Animal search strategies: a quantitative random-walk analysis. Ecology 86:3078–3087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barraquand F, Inchausti P, Bretagnolle V (2009) Cognitive abilities of a central place forager interact with prey spatial aggregation in their effect on intake rate. Anim Behav 78:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baxt W (1991) Use of an artificial neural network for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 115:843–848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell WJ (1991) Searching behaviour: the behavioural ecology of finding resources. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Benhamou S (1994) Spatial memory and searching efficiency. Anim Behav 47:1423–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benhamou S (2007) How many animals really do the Levy walk? Ecology 88:1962–1969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benhamou S, Bovet P (1989) How animals use their environment—a new look at kinesis. Anim Behav 38:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bennett DA, Tang W (2006) Modelling adaptive, spatially aware, and mobile agents: elk migration in Yellowstone. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20:1039–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biro D, Freeman R, Meade J, Roberts S, Guilford T (2007) Pigeons combine compass and landmark guidance in familiar route navigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:7471–7476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boerger L, Dalziel B, Fryxell J (2008) Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett 11:637–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boone RB, Thirgood S, Hopcraft J (2006) Serengeti wildebeest migratory patterns modeled from rainfall and new vegetation growth. Ecology 87:1987–1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonadonna F, Bajzak C, Benhamou S, Igloi K, Jouventin P, Lipp H, Dell’Omo G (2005) Orientation in the wandering albatross: interfering with magnetic perception does not affect orientation performance. Philos Trans R Soc B 272:489–495Google Scholar
  18. Bovet P, Benhamou S (1991) Optimal sinuosity in central place foraging movements. Anim Behav 42:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bowen BW, Bass A, Chow S, Bostrom M, Bjorndal K, Bolten A, Okuyama T, Bolker B, Epperly S, Lacasella E, Shaver D, Dodd M, Hopkins-Murphy S, Musick J, Swingle M, Rankin-Baransky K, Teas W, Witzell W, Dutton P (2004) Natal homing in juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Mol Ecol 13:3797–3808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chow TT, Zhang G, Lin Z, Song C (2002) Global optimization of absorption chiller system by genetic algorithm and neural network. Energy Build 34:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conradt L, Bodsworth E, Roper T, Thomas C (2000) Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models. Philos Trans R Soc B 267:1505–1510Google Scholar
  22. Croney CC, Adams K, Washington C, Stricklin W (2003) A note on visual, olfactory and spatial cue use in foraging behavior of pigs: indirectly assessing cognitive abilities. Appl Anim Behav Sci 83:303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalziel BD, Morales J, Fryxell J (2008) Fitting probability distributions to animal movement trajectories: using artificial neural networks to link distance, resources, and memory. Am Nat 172:248–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duvall D, Schuett G (1997) Straight-line movement and competitive mate searching in prairie rattlesnakes, Crotalus viridis viridis. Anim Behav 54:329–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dybowski R, Weller P, Chang R, Gant V (1996) Prediction of outcome in critically ill patients using artificial neural network synthesised by genetic algorithm. Lancet 347:1146–1150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards AM, Phillips R, Watkins N, Freeman M, Murphy E, Afanasyev V, Buldyrev S, da Luz M, Raposo E, Stanley H, Viswanathan G (2007) Revisiting Levy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses, bumblebees and deer. Nature 449:1044–1048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fagan WF, Lutscher F, Schneider K (2007) Population and community consequences of spatial subsidies derived from central-place foraging. Am Nat 170:902–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Farnsworth KD, Beecham J (1999) How do grazers achieve their distribution? A continuum of models from random diffusion to the ideal free distribution using biased random walks. Am Nat 153:509–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Folse L, Packard J, Grant W (1989) AI modeling of animal movements in a heterogeneous habitat. Ecol Model 46:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fraenkel GS, Gunn DL (1940) The orientation of animals. Kineses, taxes and compass reactions. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Fryxell JM, Hazell M, Borger L, Dalziel BD, Haydon DT, Morales JM et al (2008) Multiple movement modes by large herbivores at multiple spatiotemporal scales. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19114–19119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gautestad AO, Mysterud I (2005) Intrinsic scaling complexity in animal dispersion and abundance. Am Nat 165:44–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Getz WM, Saltz D (2008) A framework for generating and analyzing movement paths on ecological landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19066–19071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gill F (1988) Trapline foraging by hermit hummingbirds—competition for an undefended, renewable resource. Ecology 69:1933–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldberg DE, Deb K (1991) A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms. In: Rawlins GJE (ed) Foundations of genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 69–93Google Scholar
  37. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, Jeltsch F, Mooij W, Railsback S, Thulke H, Weiner J, Wiegand T, DeAngelis D (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J et al (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gurarie E, Andrews R, Laidre K (2009) A novel method for identifying behavioural changes in animal movement data. Ecol Lett 12:395–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hancock PA, Milner-Gulland E (2006) Optimal movement strategies for social foragers in unpredictable environments. Ecology 87:2094–2102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heinz SK, Strand E (2006) Adaptive patch searching strategies in fragmented landscapes. Evol Ecol 20:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hewitson L, Dumont B, Gordon I (2005) Response of foraging sheep to variability in the spatial distribution of resources. Anim Behav 69:1069–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoffmann G (1983a) The random elements in the systematic search behavior of the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hoffmann G (1983b) The search behavior of the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri as compared with a systematic search. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Holmgren NA, Norrstrom N, Getz W (2007) Artificial neural networks in models of specialization, guild evolution and sympatric speciation. Philos Trans R Soc B 362:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huse G, Strand E, Giske J (1999) Implementing behaviour in individual-based models using neural networks and genetic algorithms. Evol Ecol 13:469–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kareiva P, Odell G (1987) Swarms of predators exhibit preytaxis if individual predators use area-restricted search. Am Nat 130:233–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kramer-Schadt S, Revilla E, Wiegand T, Grimm V (2007) Patterns for parameters in simulation models. Ecol Model 204:553–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laca EA (1998) Spatial memory and food searching mechanisms of cattle. J Range Manage 51:370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mahoney SP, Schaefer J (2002) Hydroelectric development and the disruption of migration in caribou. Biol Conserv 107:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maniezzo V (1994) Genetic evolution of the topology and weight distribution of neural networks. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5:39–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mehrotra K, Mohan C, Ranka S (1996) Elements of artificial neural networks. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Merkle T, Wehner R (2009) How flexible is the systematic search behaviour of desert ants? Anim Behav 77:1051–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Merkle T, Knaden M, Wehner R (2006) Uncertainty about nest position influences systematic search strategies in desert ants. J Exp Biol 209:3545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morales JM, Haydon D, Frair J, Holsiner K, Fryxell J (2004) Extracting more out of relocation data: building movement models as mixtures of random walks. Ecology 85:2436–2445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morales JM, Fortin D, Frair J, Merrill E (2005) Adaptive models for large herbivore movements in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecol 20:301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mueller T, Fagan W (2008) Search and navigation in dynamic environments—from individual behaviors to population distributions. Oikos 117:654–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nams VO (2006) Detecting oriented movement of animals. Anim Behav 72:1197–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nathan R, Getz W, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D et al (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19052–19059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Patterson TA, Thomas L, Wilcox C, Ovaskainen O, Matthiopoulos J (2008) State-space models of individual animal movement. Trends Ecol Evol 23:87–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Piou C, Berger U, Grimm V (2009) Proposing an information criterion for individual-based models developed in a pattern-oriented framework. Ecol Model 220:1957–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reynolds AM, Rhodes C (2009) The Levy flight paradigm: random search patterns and mechanisms. Ecology 90:877–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schick RS, Loarie S, Colchero F, Best B, Boustany A, Conde D et al (2008) Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions. Ecol Lett 11:1338–1350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schooley RL, Wiens J (2003) Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Seth AK (2007) The ecology of action selection: insights from artificial life. Philos Trans R Soc B 362:1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sims DW, Southall E, Humphries N, Hays G, Bradshaw C, Pitchford J, James A, Ahmed M, Brierley A, Hindell M (2008) Scaling laws of marine predator search behaviour. Nature 451:1098–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Skellam J (1951) Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika 38:196–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Strand E, Huse G, Giske J (2002) Artificial evolution of life history and behavior. Am Nat 159:624–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tan ZJ, Zou X, Huang S, Zhang W, Jin Z (2002) Random walk with memory enhancement and decay. Phys Rev E 65:1–5Google Scholar
  70. Thomson JD (1996) Trapline foraging by bumblebees: I. Persistence of flight-path geometry. Behav Ecol 7:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  72. Viswanathan GM, Afanasyev V, Buldyrev S, Murphy E, Prince P, Stanley H (1996) Levy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses. Nature 381:413–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Viswanathan GM, Buldyrev S, Havlin S, da Luz M, Raposo E, Stanley H (1999) Optimizing the success of random searches. Nature 401:911–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wang M, Grimm V (2007) Home range dynamics and population regulation: an individual-based model of the common shrew Sorex ayaneus. Ecol Model 205:397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Winter Y, Stich K (2005) Foraging in a complex naturalistic environment: capacity of spatial working memory in flower bats. J Exp Biol 208:539–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zollner PA, Lima S (1999) Orientational data and perceptual range: real mice aren’t blind. Oikos 84:164–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Mueller
    • 1
    • 2
  • William F. Fagan
    • 1
  • Volker Grimm
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Conservation Ecology CenterNational Zoological ParkFront RoyalUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ecological ModellingHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations