Functional response in habitat selection and the tradeoffs between foraging niche components in a large herbivore

Oikos

Volumn 118, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 859-872

  Hansen, Brage Bremset ^a   Herfindal, Ivar ^a   Aanes, Ronny ^c   Sæther, Bernt Erik ^a   Henriksen, Snorre ^a,b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre   (Norway)

^c NORWEGIAN POLAR INSTITUTE   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; DEER; DIGITAL TERRAIN MODEL; FORAGE; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; GRAZING; HABITAT AVAILABILITY; HABITAT SELECTION; HERBIVORE; HOME RANGE; NDVI; NICHE PARTITIONING; PATCH USE; PREDATION; RESOURCE SELECTION; SATELLITE IMAGERY; TRADE-OFF; TROPHIC INTERACTION;

ARCTIC; SPITSBERGEN; SVALBARD; SVALBARD AND JAN MAYEN;

RANGIFER TARANDUS;

EID: 66749148799     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17098.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Aanes, R. et al. 2000. Fluctuations of an introduced population of Svalbard reindeer: the effects of density dependence and climatic variation Ecography 23 : 437 443.
2. Albon, S. D. Langvatn, R. 1992. Plant phenology and the benefits of migration in a temperate ungulate Oikos 65 : 502 513. (Pubitemid 23399507)
3. Andersen, R. Sæther, B.-E. 1992. Functional-response during winter of a herbivore, the moose, in relation to age and size Ecology 73 : 542 550.
4. Arnemo, J. M. Aanes, R. in press. Reversible immobilization of free-ranging Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus) with medetomidine-ketamine and atipamezole. J. Wildlife Dis.
5. Basille, M. et al. 2008. Assessing habitat selection using multivariate statistics: some refinements of the ecological-niche factor analysis Ecol. Modell. 211 : 233 240.
6. Bates, D. 2008. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package ver. 0.999375-8.
7. Boelman, N. T. et al. 2003. Response of NDVI, biomass, and ecosystem gas exchange to long-term warming and fertilization in wet sedge tundra Oecologia 135 : 414 421. (Pubitemid 36639460)
8. Börger, L. et al. 2006. Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates J. Anim. Ecol. 75 : 1393 1405. (Pubitemid 44556461)
9. Burnham, K. P. Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd ed. Springer.
10. Calenge, C. 2006. The package "adehabitat" for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals Ecol. Modell. 197 : 516 519. (Pubitemid 44108402)
11. Calenge, C. et al. 2005. K-select analysis: a new method to analyse habitat selection in radio-tracking studies Ecol. Modell. 186 : 143 153. (Pubitemid 40902332)
12. Fretwell, S. Lucas, H. 1969. On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds Acta Biotheor. 19 : 16 36.
13. Fryxell, J. M. 1991. Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores Am. Nat. 138 : 478 498.
14. Fryxell, J. M. et al. 2005. Landscape scale, heterogeneity, and the viability of Serengeti grazers Ecol. Lett. 8 : 328 335. (Pubitemid 40393918)
15. Hagemoen, R. I. M. Reimers, E. 2002. Reindeer summer activity pattern in relation to weather and insect harassment J. Anim. Ecol. 71 : 883 892.
16. Hanley, T. A. 1997. A nutritional view of understanding and complexity in the problem of diet selection by deer (Cervidae) Oikos 79 : 209 218. (Pubitemid 27213425)
17. Hansen, B. B. et al. 2007. Ungulate impact on vegetation in a two-level trophic system Polar Biol. 30 : 549 558. (Pubitemid 46376533)
18. Harestad, A. S. Bunnell, F. L. 1979. Home range and body weight - a reevaluation Ecology 60 : 389 402.
19. Harris, S. et al. 1990. Home-range analysis using radio-tracking data - a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to study of mammals Mammal Rev. 20 : 97 123.
20. Hebblewhite, M. et al. 2008. A multi-scale test of the forage maturation hypothesis in a partially migratory ungulate population Ecol. Monogr. 78 : 141 166.
21. Herfindal, I. et al. 2006. Environmental phenology and geographical gradients in moose body mass Oecologia 150 : 213 224. (Pubitemid 44607241)
22. Hirzel, A. H. et al. 2002. Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data? Ecology 83 : 2027 2036. (Pubitemid 36524791)
23. Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Population studies: animal ecology and demography Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 22 : 415 427.
24. Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference Ecology 61 : 65 71.
25. Kie, J. G. 1999. Optimal foraging and risk of predation: effects on behaviour and social structure in ungulates J. Mammal. 80 : 1114 1129. (Pubitemid 129588584)
26. Kohler, J. Aanes, R. 2004. Effect of winter snow and ground-icing on a Svalbard reindeer population: results of a simple snowpack model Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 36 : 332 340.
27. Langvatn, R. Hanley, T. A. 1993. Feeding-patch choice by red deer in relation to foraging efficiency Oecologia 95 : 164 170. (Pubitemid 24410973)
28. Langvatn, R. et al. 1996. Climate, plant phenology and variation in age of first reproduction in a temperate herbivore J. Anim. Ecol. 65 : 653 670.
29. Lillesand, T. M. Kiefer, R. W. 2000. Remote sensing and image interpretation, 4th ed. Wiley.
30. Loison, A. et al. 1999. Body mass and winter mortality in red deer calves: disentangling sex and climate effects Ecography 22 : 20 30. (Pubitemid 29139182)
31. MacArthur, R. H. Pianka, E. R. 1966. On optimal use of a patchy environment Am. Nat. 100 : 603 609.
32. Milchunas, D. G. et al. 1995. Forage quality in relation to long-term grazing history, current-year defoliation, and water resource Oecologia 101 : 366 374.
33. Mitchell, M. S. Powell, R. A. 2004. A mechanistic home range model for optimal use of spatially distributed resources Ecol. Modell. 177 : 209 232. (Pubitemid 38852256)
34. Mysterud, A. 2006. The concept of overgrazing and its role in management of large herbivores Wildlife Biol. 12 : 129 141. (Pubitemid 44031564)
35. Mysterud, A. Ims, R. A. 1998. Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in tradeoff situations Ecology 79 : 1435 1441. (Pubitemid 28378689)
36. Mysterud, A. et al. 2001. Plant phenology, migration and geographical variation in body weight of a large herbivore: the effect of a variable topography J. Anim. Ecol. 70 : 915 923. (Pubitemid 33146343)
37. Olff, H. et al. 2002. Global environmental controls of diversity in large herbivores Nature 415 : 901 904. (Pubitemid 34174750)
38. Otis, D. L. White, G. C. 1999. Autocorrelation of location estimates and the analysis of radiotracking data J. Wildlife Manage. 63 : 1039 1044. (Pubitemid 29332398)
39. Parker, G. A. Sutherland, W. J. 1986. Ideal free distributions when individuals differ in competitive ability - phenotype-limited ideal free models Anim. Behav. 34 : 1222 1242.
40. Pettorelli, N. et al. 2005. Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 : 503 510. (Pubitemid 41207086)
41. Riedel, S. M. et al. 2005. Biotic controls over spectral reflectance of arctic tundra vegetation Int. J. Rem. Sens. 26 : 2391 2405. (Pubitemid 41007403)
42. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1981. A theory of habitat selection Ecology 62 : 327 335.
43. Rosenzweig, M. L. 1991. Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanisms Am. Nat. 137 : S5 S28.
44. Sæther, B.-E. Andersen, R. 1990. Resource limitation in a generalist herbivore, the moose Alces alces: ecological constraints on behavioural decisions Can. J. Zool. 68 : 993 999.
45. Sæther, B.-E. et al. 1996. Ecological correlates of regional variation in life history of the moose Alces alces Ecology 77 : 1493 1500.
46. Saïd, S. 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. (Pubitemid 41464527)
47. Sappington, J. M. et al. 2007. Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert J. Wildlife Manage. 71 : 1419 1426.
48. Skogland, T. 1980. Comparative summer feeding strategies of arctic and alpine Rangifer J. Anim. Ecol. 49 : 81 98.
49. Skogland, T. 1984. Wild reindeer foraging-niche organization Holarct. Ecol. 7 : 345 379.
50. Staaland, H. 1986. Svalbardreinens ernæring Øritsland, N. A. Svalbardreinen og dens livsgrunnlag. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo 72 91.
51. Stephens, D. W. Krebs, J. R. 1986. Foraging theory. University Press.
52. Tufto, J. et al. 1996. Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer J. Anim. Ecol. 65 : 715 724.
53. van der Wal, R. et al. 2000. Trading forage quality for quantity? Plant phenology and patch choice by Svalbard reindeer Oecologia 123 : 108 115. (Pubitemid 30244386)
54. Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd ed. Cornell Univ. Press.
55. Vivås, H. J. Sæther, B.-E. 1987. Interactions between a generalist herbivore, the moose Alces alces, and its food resources - an experimental-study of winter foraging behaviour in relation to browse availability J. Anim. Ecol. 56 : 509 520.
56. Westoby, M. 1974. An analysis of diet selection by large generalist herbivores Am. Nat. 108 : 290 304.
57. White, R. G. 1983. Foraging patterns and their multiplier effects on productivity of northern ungulates Oikos 40 : 377 384.
58. Wilmshurst, J. F. et al. 1999. Spatial distribution of Serengeti wildebeest in relation to resources Can. J. Zool. 77 : 1221 1232.
59. Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies Ecology 70 : 164 168. (Pubitemid 20418153)