Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A model for habitat selection and species distribution derived from central place foraging theory

  • Behavioral ecology - Original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We have developed a habitat selection model based on central place foraging theory. An individual’s decision to include a patch in its habitat depends on the marginal fitness contribution of that patch, which is characterized by its quality and distance to the central place. The essence of the model we have developed is a fitness isocline which is a function of patch quality and travel time to the patch. It has two parameters: the maximum travel distance to a patch of infinite quality and a coefficient that appropriately scales quality by travel time. Patches falling below the isocline will have positive marginal fitness values and should be included in the habitat. The maximum travel distance depends on the availability and quality of patches, as well as on the forager’s life history, whereas the scaling parameter mostly depends on life history properties. Using the model, we derived a landscape quality metric (which can be thought of as a connectivity measure) that sums the values of available habitat in the landscape around a central place. We then fitted the two parameters to foraging data on breeding white storks (Ciconia ciconia) and estimated landscape quality, which correlated strongly with reproductive success. Landscape quality was then calculated for a larger region where re-introduction of the species is currently going on in order to demonstrate how this model can also be regarded as a species distribution model. In conclusion, we have built a general habitat selection model for central place foragers and a novel way of estimating landscape quality based on a behaviorally scaled connectivity metric.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin M (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol Model 200:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M (2010) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

  • Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH (2011) Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv Biol 25:879–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bogetoft P, Otto L (2011) Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bozinovic E, Vásquez RA (1999) Patch use in a diurnal rodent: handling and searching under thermoregulatory costs. Funct Ecol 13:602–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholz R (2007) Behavioural biology: an effective and relevant conservation tool. Trends Ecol Evol 22:401–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burke CM, Montevecchi WA (2009) The foraging decisions of a central place foraging seabird in response to fluctuations in local prey conditions. J Zool 278:354–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabral JS, Kreft H (2012) Linking ecological niche, community ecology and biogeography: insights from a mechanistic niche model. J Biogeogr 39:2212–2224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrascal LM, Alonso JC, Alonso JA (1990) Aggregation size and foraging behavior of White Storks Ciconia ciconia during the breeding season. Ardea 78:399–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrascal LM, Bautista LM, Lazaro E (1993) Geographical variation in the density of the white stork Ciconia ciconia in Spain—influence of habitat structure and climate. Biol Conserv 65:83–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvell C, Jordan WC, Bourke AFG, Pickles R, Redhead JW, Heard MS (2012) Molecular and spatial analyses reveal links between colony-specific foraging distance and landscape-level resource availability in two bumblebee species. Oikos 121:734–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chivers LS, Lundy MG, Colhoun K, Newton SF, Houghton JDR, Reid N (2012) Foraging trip time-activity budgets and reproductive success in the black-legged kittiwake. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 456:269–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell JE, Osborne JL, Goulson D (2000) An economic model of th limits to foraging range in central place foragers with numerical solutions for bumblebees. Ecol Entomol 25:249–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill IC, Kacelnik A (1990) Central place foraging: a reappraisal of the ‘loading effect’. Anim Behav 40:1087–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dancose K, Fortin D, Guo XL (2011) Mechanisms of functional connectivity: the case of free-ranging bison in a forest landscape. Ecol Appl 21:1871–1885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dormann CF, Schymanski SJ, Cabral J, Chuine I, Graham C, Hartig F et al (2012) Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J Biogeogr 39:2119–2131

    Google Scholar 

  • Dziewiaty K (1992) Nahrungsokologische Untersuchungen am Weissstorch Ciconia ciconia in der Dannenberger Elbmarsch (Niedersachsen). Vogelwelt 113:133–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Dziewiaty K (2002) Significance of the Elbe dyke foreshore and hinterland as feeding habitats for white storks (Ciconia ciconia). Vogelwarte 41:221–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2003) Bumblebees: their behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (2000) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins SI, O’Hara RB, Römermann C (2012) A niche for biology in species distribution models. J Biogeogr 39:2091–2095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jha S, Kremen C (2013) Resource diversity and landscape-level homogeneity drive native bee foraging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:555–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johst K, Brandl R, Pfeifer R (2001) Foraging in a patchy and dynamic landscape: human land use and the White Stork. Ecol Appl 11:60–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadoya T (2009) Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul Ecol 51:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight ME et al (2005) An interspecific comparison of foraging range and nest density of four bumblebee (Bombus) species. Mol Ecol 14:1811–1820

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koenker R (2013) Quantile regression in R: A vignette. http://cran.rproject.org

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Knight MH (1999) Habitat and patch use by hyraxes: there’s no place like home? Ecol Lett 2:82–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer DL, Nowell W (1980) Central place foraging in the eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus. Anim Behav 28:772–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsdorf E, Kremen C, Ricketts TH, Winfree R, Williams NM, Greenleaf SS (2009) Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. Ann Bot 103:1589–1600

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell MS, Powell RA (2007) Optimal use of resources structures home ranges and spatial distribution of black bears. Anim Behav 74:219–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritzi M, Maumary L, Schmid D, Steiner I, Vallotton L, Spaar R, Biber O (2001) Time budget, habitat use and breeding success of White Storks Ciconia ciconia under variable foraging conditions during the breeding season in Switzerland. Ardea 89:457–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O (2007) Genetic origin and success of reintroduced white storks. Conserv Biol 21:1196–1206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Molokwu MN (2007) On the missed opportunity cost, GUD, and estimating environmental quality. Isr J Ecol Evol 53:263–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Rogers DJ (2009) Predicting the distribution of a suitable habitat for the white stork in Southern Sweden: identifying priority areas for reintroduction and habitat restoration. Anim Conserv 12:62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Brown JS, Smith HG (2001) Gain curves in depletable food patches: a test of five models with European starlings. Evol Ecol Res 3:285–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Brown JS, Helf KL (2008) A guide to central place effects in foraging. Theor Popul Biol 74:22–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2001) Spatially structured metapopulation models: global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity. Theor Popul Biol 60:281–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainho A, Palmeirim JM (2011) The importance of distance to resources in the spatial modelling of bat foraging habitat. PLoS One 6:e19227

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schaub M, Pradel R, Lebreton JD (2004) Is the reintroduced white stork (Ciconia ciconia) population in Switzerland self-sustainable? Biol Conserv 119:105–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1979) Generality of size–distance relation in model of optimal feeding. Am Nat 114:902–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Brown JS, Ydenberg RC (2007) Foraging. Behavior and ecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen JM (1981) Foraging decisions in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris L.). Ardea 69:1–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tryjanowski P, Sparks TH, Profus P (2005) Uphill shifts in the distribution of the white stork Ciconia ciconia in southern Poland: the importance of nest quality. Divers Distrib 11:219–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Have TM, Enters A, Harte M, Jonkers DA, van Nee W, Reitveld R (1999) The return of the white stork in the Netherlands: population size and breeding success in 1995. In: Schulz H (ed) Proc Int Symp on white stork.. NABU (Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V.), Bonn, pp 103–110

  • van Gils JA, Tijsen W (2007) Short-term foraging costs and long-term fueling rates in central-place foraging swans revealed by giving-up exploitation times. Am Nat 169:609–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Post M, Borgstrom P, Smith HG, Olsson O (2012) Assessing habitat quality of farm-dwelling house sparrows in different agricultural landscapes. Oecologia 168:959–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2006) Bumblebees experience landscapes at different spatial scales: possible implications for coexistence. Oecologia 149:289–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiktander U, Olsson O, Nilsson SG (2001) Seasonal variation in home-range size, and habitat area requirement of the lesser spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor) in south Sweden. Biol Conserv 100:387–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams NM, Regetz J, Kremen C (2012) Landscape-scale resources promote colony growth but not reproductive performance of bumble bees. Ecol 93:1049–1058

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfree R et al (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165:707–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ydenberg RC, Davies WE (2010) Resource geometry and provisioning routines. Behav Ecol 21:1170–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zurbuchen A, Cheesman S, Klaiber J, Müller A, Hein S, Dorn S (2010) Long foraging distances impose high costs on offspring production in solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 79:674–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was financed through Grants from Formas, Oscar and Lili Lamms Stiftelse, and the Centre for Environment and Climate research at Lund University to OO and through the Formas-funded project SAPES. We thank Alan Brelsford, Daniel Rogers and Nina Yoo Pedersen for assistance in the field, and Eric Lonsdorf, Geerten Hengeveld, Jan van Gils, Chris Whelan and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on previous versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biodiversity Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, Ecology Building, 223 62, Lund, Sweden

    Ola Olsson & Arvid Bolin

  2. Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, Ecology Building, 223 62, Lund, Sweden

    Arvid Bolin

Authors
  1. Ola Olsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arvid Bolin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ola Olsson.

Additional information

Communicated by Chris Whelan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 382 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olsson, O., Bolin, A. A model for habitat selection and species distribution derived from central place foraging theory. Oecologia 175, 537–548 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-2931-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-2931-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation