Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Truly sedentary? The multi-range tactic as a response to resource heterogeneity and unpredictability in a large herbivore

  • Behavioral ecology –original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much research on large herbivore movement has focused on the annual scale to distinguish between resident and migratory tactics, commonly assuming that individuals are sedentary at the within-season scale. However, apparently sedentary animals may occupy a number of sub-seasonal functional home ranges (sfHR), particularly when the environment is spatially heterogeneous and/or temporally unpredictable. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) experiences sharply contrasting environmental conditions due to its widespread distribution, but appears markedly sedentary over much of its range. Using GPS monitoring from 15 populations across Europe, we evaluated the propensity of this large herbivore to be truly sedentary at the seasonal scale in relation to variation in environmental conditions. We studied movement using net square displacement to identify the possible use of sfHR. We expected that roe deer should be less sedentary within seasons in heterogeneous and unpredictable environments, while migratory individuals should be seasonally more sedentary than residents. Our analyses revealed that, across the 15 populations, all individuals adopted a multi-range tactic, occupying between two and nine sfHR during a given season. In addition, we showed that (i) the number of sfHR was only marginally influenced by variation in resource distribution, but decreased with increasing sfHR size; and (ii) the distance between sfHR increased with increasing heterogeneity and predictability in resource distribution, as well as with increasing sfHR size. We suggest that the multi-range tactic is likely widespread among large herbivores, allowing animals to track spatio-temporal variation in resource distribution and, thereby, to cope with changes in their local environment.

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

  • Baguette M, Stevens VM, Clobert J (2014) The pros and cons of applying the movement ecology paradigm for studying animal dispersal. Mov Ecol 2(2):13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barraquand F, Benhamou S (2008) Animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: identifying profitable places and homogeneous movement bouts. Ecology 89:3336–3348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benhamou S (2014) Of scales and stationarity in animal movements. Ecol Lett 17:261–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bischof R, Loe LE, Meisingset EL et al (2012) A migratory northern ungulate in the pursuit of spring: jumping or surfing the green wave? Am Nat 180:407–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Börger L, Fryxell JM (2012) Quantifying individual differences in dispersal using net squared displacement. In: Clobert J, Baguette M, Benton TJ, Bullock J (eds) Dispersal ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 222–230

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Börger L, Dalziel BD, Fryxell JM (2008) Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett 11:637–650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borowik T, Pettorelli N, Sönnichsen L, Jedrzejewska B (2013) Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as a predictor of forage availability for ungulates in forest and field habitats. Eur J Wildl Res 59:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bracis C, Gurarie E, Van Moorter B, Goodwin RA (2015) Memory effects on movement behavior in animal foraging. PLoS ONE 10:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JL, Orians GH (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:239–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunnefeld N, Börger L, van Moorter B et al (2011) A model-driven approach to quantify migration patterns: individual, regional and yearly differences. J Anim Ecol 80:466–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagnacci F, Focardi S, Heurich M et al (2011) Partial migration in roe deer: migratory and resident tactics are end points of a behavioural gradient determined by ecological factors. Oikos 120:1790–1802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagnacci F, Focardi S, Ghisla A et al (2015) How many routes lead to migration? Comparison of methods to assess and characterise migratory movements. J Anim Ecol 85:54–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS, Johnson DA, McKendrick JD (1980) Seasonal movement of nutrients in plants of differing growth form in an Alaskan tundra ecosystem: implications for herbivory. J Ecol 68:189–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman BB, Hulthén K, Wellenreuther M et al (2014) Patterns of animal migration. In: Hansson L-A, Åkesson S (eds) Animal movement across scales. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 11–35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK (1974) Predictability, constancy, and contingency of periodic phenomena. Ecology 55:1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coops N, Culvenor D (2000) Utilizing local variance of simulated high spatial resolution imagery to predict spatial pattern of forest stands. Remote Sens Environ 71:248–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coops N, Culvenor D, Preston R, Catling P (1998) Procedures for predicting habitat and structural attributes in eucalypt forests using high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery. Aust For 61:244–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornélis D, Benhamou S, Janeau G et al (2011) Spatiotemporal dynamics of forage and water resources shape space use of West African savanna buffaloes. J Mammal 92:1287–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English AK, Chauvenet ALM, Safi K, Pettorelli N (2012) Reassessing the determinants of breeding synchrony in ungulates. PLoS ONE 7:e41444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fryxell JM, Sinclair ARE (1988) Causes and consequences of migration by large herbivores. Trends Ecol Evol 3:237–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garroutte EL, Hansen AJ, Lawrence RL (2016) Using NDVI and EVI to map spatiotemporal variation in the biomass and quality of forage for migratory elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8050404

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurarie E, Cagnacci F, Peters W et al (2017) A framework for modeling range shifts and migrations: asking whether, whither, when, and will it return. J Anim 86:943–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12426

    Google Scholar 

  • Haight FA (1967) Handbook of the Poisson distribution. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel S, Garel M, Festa-Bianchet M et al (2009) Spring Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) predicts annual variation in timing of peak faecal crude protein in mountain ungulates. J Appl Ecol 46:582–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01643.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein AM, Hou C, Gillooly JF (2012) Energetic and biomechanical constraints on animal migration distance. Ecol Lett 15:104–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01714.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hewison AJM, Vincent J-P, Reby D (1998) Social organisation of European roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 189–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang S, Meng SX, Yang Y (2009) Assessing the goodness of fit of forest models estimated by nonlinear mixed-model methods. Can J For Res 39:2418–2436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report

  • Jepsen JU, Topping CJ (2004) Modelling roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a gradient of forest fragmentation: behavioural plasticity and choice of cover. Can J Zool 82:1528–1541. https://doi.org/10.1139/Z04-131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson CL, Muijres FT, Hedenström A (2014) The physics of animal locomotion. In: Hansson L-A, Åkesson S (eds) Animal movement across scales. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 232–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr JT, Ostrovsky M (2003) From space to species: ecological applications for remote sensing. Trends Ecol Evol 18:299–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klisch A, Atzberger C (2016) Operational drought monitoring in Kenya using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens 8:267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latombe G, Fortin D, Parrott L (2014) Spatio-temporal dynamics in the response of woodland caribou and moose to the passage of grey wolf. J Anim Ecol 83:185–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lavielle M (1999) Detection of multiple changes in a sequence of dependent variables. Stoch Process Appl 83:79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lendrum PE, Anderson CR, Monteith KL et al (2014) Relating the movement of a rapidly migrating ungulate to spatiotemporal patterns of forage quality. Mamm Biol 79:369–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnell JDC, Duncan P, Andersen R (1998) The European roe deer: a portrait of a successful species. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 11–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Lone K, Mysterud A, Gobakken T et al (2016) Temporal variation in habitat selection breaks the catch-22 of spatially contrasting predation risk from multiple predators. Oikos 126:624–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell WA, Lima SL (2002) Predator-prey shell games: large-scale movement and its implications for decision-making by prey. Oikos 99:249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morellet N, Bonenfant C, Börger L et al (2013) Seasonality, weather and climate affect home range size in roe deer across a wide latitudinal gradient within Europe. J Anim Ecol 82:1326–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller T, Fagan WF (2008) Search and navigation in dynamic environments - from individual behaviors to population distributions. Oikos 117:654–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller T, Olson KA, Dressler G et al (2011) How landscape dynamics link individual- to population-level movement patterns: a multispecies comparison of ungulate relocation data. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:683–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E et al (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19052–19059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith N, Fryxell JM, Merrill EH (2010) Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 365:2267–2278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Papi F (1992) Animal homing. Chapman and Hall, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peters W, Hebblewhite M, Musterud A et al (2017) Migration in geographic and ecological space by a large herbivore. Ecol Monogr 87:297–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettorelli N, Ryan S, Mueller T et al (2011) The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Clim Res 46:15–27. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19120–19125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Riotte-Lambert L, Benhamou S, Chamaillé-Jammes S (2015) How memory-based movement leads to nonterritorial spatial segregation. Am Nat 185:E103–E116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Mysterud A (2010) How does local weather predict red deer home range size at different temporal scales? J Anim Ecol 79:1280–1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saïd S, Gaillard J-M, Duncan P et al (2005) Ecological correlates of home-range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland. J Zool 267:301–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitz DB, Hebblewhite M, Stephenson TR (2017) “MigrateR”: extending model-driven methods for classifying and quantifying animal movement behavior. Ecography (Cop) 40:788–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing

  • Turchin P (1991) Translating foraging movements in heterogeneous environments into the spatial distribution of foragers. Ecology 72:1253–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beest FM, Rivrud IM, Loe LE et al (2011) What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol 80:771–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Moorter B, Visscher D, Benhamou S et al (2009) Memory keeps you at home: a mechanistic model for home range emergence. Oikos 118:641–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Moorter B, Bunnefeld N, Panzacchi M et al (2013) Understanding scales of movement: animals ride waves and ripples of environmental change. J Anim Ecol 82:770–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Moorter B, Rolandsen CM, Basille M, Gaillard J-M (2016) Movement is the glue connecting home ranges and habitat selection. J Anim Ecol 85:21–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vanpé C, Gaillard J, Morellet N et al (2009) Age-specific variation in male breeding success of a territorial ungulate species, the European roe deer. J Mammal 90:661–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuolo F, Mattiuzzi M, Klisch A, Atzberger C (2012) Data service platform for MODIS Vegetation Indices time series processing at BOKU Vienna: current status and future perspectives. SPIE Proc 8538:85380A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was conceived and written within the EURODEER collaborative project (paper no. 07 of the EURODEER series; www.eurodeer.org). The coauthors are grateful to all members for their support for the initiative. The EURODEER spatial database is hosted by Fondazione Edmund Mach. For France, we would like to thank the local hunting associations and the Fédération Départementale des Chasseurs de la Haute Garonne for allowing us to work in the Comminges, as well as numerous co-workers and volunteers for their assistance. GPS data collection at the Fondazione Edmund Mach was supported by the Autonomous Province of Trento under grant no. 3479 to F.C. (BECOCERWI—Behavioural Ecology of Cervids in Relation to Wildlife Infections) and project 2C2T. The Norwegian data collection was funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency and the county administration of Buskerud county. J Linnell was also funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grants 212919 and 251112). Financial support for GPS data collection in the Bavarian Forest was provided by the EU-programme INTERREG IV (EFRE Ziel 3) and the Bavarian Forest National Park Administration. The Czech Republic data collection was funded by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of CR within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), grant number LO1415. Funding was provided in Białowieża, Poland by the Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), the Mammal Research Institute - Polish Academy of Sciences, the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (grant no NN304172536). We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CEFS, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet Tolosan, France

    Ophélie Couriot, A. J. Mark Hewison & Nicolas Morellet

  2. Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, Direction Recherche et Expertise, Unité Ongulés Sauvages, Monfort, 01330, Birieux, France

    Sonia Saïd

  3. Biodiversity and Molecular Ecology Department, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Via Mach 1, 38010, San Michele all’Adige, TN, Italy

    Francesca Cagnacci

  4. CNRS, Univ Montpellier, EPHE, IRD, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, 34293, Montpellier, France

    Simon Chamaillé-Jammes

  5. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, PO Box 5685, Torgard, NO-7485, Trondheim, Norway

    John D. C. Linnell

  6. Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1066, NO-0316, Oslo, Norway

    Atle Mysterud

  7. Bavarian State Institute of Forestry (LWF), Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 1, 85354, Freising, Germany

    Wibke Peters

  8. Freelance Consultant, Milan, Italy

    Ferdinando Urbano

  9. Department of Conservation and Research, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Str. 2, 94481, Grafenau, Germany

    Marco Heurich

  10. Chair of Wildlife Ecology and Management, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Marco Heurich & Max Kroeschel

  11. Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Riddarhyttan, Sweden

    Petter Kjellander

  12. Research, Ecology and Environment Dimension (D.R.E.Am. Italia), Via Enrico Bindi 14, 51100, Pistoia, PT, Italy

    Sandro Nicoloso

  13. Leibniz-Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany

    Anne Berger

  14. Department of Biodiversity Research, Global Change Research Institute CAS, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic

    Pavel Sustr

  15. Šumava National Park, Vimperk, Czech Republic

    Pavel Sustr

  16. Forest Research Institute of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Wildlife Ecology, Wonnhaldestraße 4, 79100, Freiburg, Germany

    Max Kroeschel

  17. Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Stoczek 1, 17-230, Białowieza, Poland

    Leif Soennichsen

  18. Leibniz Instuture for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V. Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany

    Leif Soennichsen

  19. Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

    Robin Sandfort

  20. Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zurich, Germany

    Benedikt Gehr

Authors
  1. Ophélie Couriot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. J. Mark Hewison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonia Saïd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesca Cagnacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Simon Chamaillé-Jammes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John D. C. Linnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Atle Mysterud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wibke Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ferdinando Urbano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marco Heurich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Petter Kjellander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sandro Nicoloso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Anne Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Pavel Sustr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Max Kroeschel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Leif Soennichsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Robin Sandfort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Benedikt Gehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Nicolas Morellet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

OC, NM and AJMH formulated the idea. AJMH, FC, JDCL, AM, MH, PK, SN, AB, PS, MK, LS, RS and BG provided data. FU created and updated the database. OC, NM, and AJMH developed the methodology, OC and NM performed the statistical analyses and wrote the manuscript with assistance from AJMH. SS, FC, SCJ, JDCL, AM, WP, FU, MH, PK, SN, AB, PS, MK, LS, RS and BG commented on and assisted in revising the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ophélie Couriot.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Data accessibility

Data used for this study are accessible on EURODEER website (http://eurodeer.org) on demand.

Additional information

Communicated by Ilpo Kojola.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3794 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Couriot, O., Hewison, A.J.M., Saïd, S. et al. Truly sedentary? The multi-range tactic as a response to resource heterogeneity and unpredictability in a large herbivore. Oecologia 187, 47–60 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4131-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4131-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation