Unveiling trade-offs in resource selection of migratory caribou using a mechanistic movement model of availability

Ecography

Volumn 38, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1049-1059

  Bastille Rousseau, Guillaume ^a   Potts, Jonathan R ^b,c   Schaefer, James A ^a   Lewis, Mark A ^b   Ellington, E Hance ^a   Rayl, Nathaniel D ^d   Mahoney, Shane P ^e   Murray, Dennis L ^a  

^a TRENT UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^e City of St Johns   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEAR; BIOTELEMETRY; CANID; DEER; ENCOUNTER RATE; EXTINCTION; FIELD SURVEY; FORAGE; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; GPS; HABITAT AVAILABILITY; HABITAT SELECTION; MIGRATORY BEHAVIOR; MIGRATORY POPULATION; MOVEMENT; PREDATION RISK; REMOTE SENSING; RESOURCE SELECTION; TRADE-OFF;

CANADA; NEWFOUNDLAND; NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR;

CANIDAE; CANIS LATRANS; CANIS LUPUS; RANGIFER TARANDUS; URSUS AMERICANUS;

EID: 84942308385     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.01305     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Aarts, G. et al. 2013. Quantifying the effect of habitat availability on species distributions. - J. Anim. Ecol. 82: 1135-1145.
2. Alerstam, T. et al. 2003. Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants. - Oikos 103: 247-260.
3. Arthur, S. M. et al. 1996. Assessing habitat selection when availability changes. - Ecology 77: 215-227.
4. Avgar, T. et al. 2013. An empirically parameterized individual based model of animal movement, perception, and memory. - Ecol. Model. 251: 158-172.
5. Bastille-Rousseau, G. et al. 2010. Inference from habitat-selection analysis depends on foraging strategies. - J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 1157-1163.
6. Bastille-Rousseau, G. et al. 2013. Population decline in semi- migratory caribou (Rangifer tarandus): intrinsic or extrinsic drivers? - Can. J. Zool. 91: 820-828.
7. Bates, D. et al. 2014. Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. - R package, ver. 1.1-7.
8. Bergerud, A. T. et al. 2008. The return of caribou to Ungava. - McGill-Queen's Univ. Press.
9. Beyer, H. L. et al. 2010. The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use-availability designs. - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365: 2245-2254.
10. Boyce, M. S. 2006. Scale for resource selection functions. - Divers. Distrib. 12: 269-276.
11. Boyce, M. S. et al. 2002. Evaluating resource selection functions. - Ecol. Model. 157: 281-300.
12. Brown, J. S. and Kotler, B. P. 2004. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. - Ecol. Lett. 7: 999-1014.
13. Brown, J. S. et al. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. - J. Mammal. 80: 385-399.
14. Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference. - Springer.
15. Calenge, C. 2006. The package "adehabitat" for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. - Ecol. Model. 197: 516-519.
16. Creel, S. and Christianson, D. 2008. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 194-201.
17. Creel, S. et al. 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. - Ecology 86: 3387-3397.
18. Creel, S. et al. 2009. Glucocorticoid stress hormones and the effect of predation risk on elk reproduction. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 12388-12393.
19. Cresswell, W. 2008. Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. - Ibis 150: 3-17.
20. Dancose, K. et al. 2011. Mechanisms of functional connectivity: the case of free-ranging bison in a forest landscape. - Ecol. Appl. 21: 1871-1885.
21. DeCesare, N. J. et al. 2012. Transcending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. - Ecol. Appl. 22: 1068-1083.
22. Dussault, C. et al. 2005. Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors. - Ecography 28: 619-628.
23. Environment Canada 2013. - National Climate Data and Information Archive.
24. Festa-Bianchet, M. et al. 2011. Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain future. - Can. J. Zool. 89: 419-434.
25. Fieberg, J. et al. 2010. Correlation and studies of habitat selection: problem, red herring or opportunity? - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365: 2233-2244.
26. Fortin, D. and Fortin, M. E. 2009. Group-size-dependent association between food profitability, predation risk and distribution of free-ranging bison. - Anim. Behav. 78: 887-892.
27. Fortin, D. et al. 2005. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. - Ecology 86: 1320-1330.
28. Fryxell, J. M. and Sinclair, A. R. E. 1988. Causes and consequences of migration by large herbivores. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 237-241.
29. Fryxell, J. M. and Avgar, T. 2012. Animal migration: catching the wave. - Nature 490: 182-183.
30. Gaillard, J.-M. et al. 2010. Habitat-performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale. - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365: 2255-2265.
31. Gillies, C. S. et al. 2006. Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. - J. Anim. Ecol. 75: 887-898.
32. Graham, M. H. 2003. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. - Ecology 84: 2809-2815.
33. Gunn, A. et al. 2012. A conceptual model for migratory tundra caribou to explain and predict why shifts in spatial fidelity of breeding cows to their calving grounds are infrequent. - Rangifer Spec. Issue 20: 259-267.
34. Hamel, S. and Côté, S. D. 2008. Trade-offs in activity budget in an alpine ungulate: contrasting lactating and nonlactating females. - Anim. Behav. 75: 217-227.
35. Hebblewhite, M. and Merrill, E. 2008. Modelling wildlife-human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. - J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 834-844.
36. Hebblewhite, M. and Merrill, E. H. 2009. Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate. - Ecology 90: 3445-3454.
37. Hebblewhite, M. and Haydon, D. T. 2010. Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365: 2303-2312.
38. Hebblewhite, M. and Merrill, E. H. 2011. Demographic balancing of migrant and resident elk in a partially migratory population through forage-predation tradeoffs. - Oikos 120: 1860-1870.
39. 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.
40. Hjermann, D. Ø. 2000. Analyzing habitat selection in animals without well-defined home ranges. - Ecology 81: 1462-1468.
41. Horne, J. S. et al. 2007. Analyzing animal movements using Brownian bridges. - Ecology 88: 2354-2363.
42. Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. - Ecology 61: 65-71.
43. Laundré, J. W. 2010. Behavioral response races, predator-prey shell games, ecology of fear, and patch use of pumas and their ungulate prey. - Ecology 91: 2995-3007.
44. Lima, S. L. 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. - Stress Behav. 27: 215-290.
45. Lima, S. L. and Dill, L. M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation - a review and prospectus. - Can. J. Zool. 68: 619-640.
46. Lima, S. L. and Bednekoff, P. A. 1999. Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. - Am. Nat. 153: 649-659.
47. Mahoney, S. P. and Schaefer, J. A. 2002a. Hydroelectric development and the disruption of migration in caribou. - Biol. Conserv. 107: 147-153.
48. Mahoney, S. P. and Schaefer, J. A. 2002b. Long-term changes in demography and migration of Newfoundland caribou. - J. Mammal. 83: 957-963.
49. Mahoney, S. P. and Weir, J. N. 2009. Caribou data synthesis. Progress report. Overview of the status of woodland caribou in insular Newfoundland: research methodology, results, interpretations and future projections. - Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St John's, Canada.
50. Mahoney, S. P. et al. 2011. Morphological change in Newfoundland caribou: effects of abundance and climate. - Rangifer 31: 21-34.
51. Manly, B. F. J. et al. 2002. Resource selection by animals: Statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd ed. - Chapman and Hall.
52. Matthiopoulos, J. 2003. The use of space by animals as a function of accessibility and preference. - Ecol. Model. 159: 239-268.
53. Mayor, S. J. et al. 2007. Spectrum of selection: new approaches to detecting the scale-dependent response to habitat. - Ecology 88: 1634-1640.
54. McLoughlin, P. D. et al. 2010. Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection functions. - J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 4-12.
55. Middleton, A. D. et al. 2013. Animal migration amid shifting patterns of phenology and predation: lessons from a Yellowstone elk herd. - Ecology 94: 1245-1256.
56. Mitchell, W. A. and Lima, S. L. 2002. Predator-prey shell games: large-scale movement and its implications for decision-making by prey. - Oikos 99: 249-259.
57. Moorcroft, P. R. and Barnett, A. 2008. Mechanistic home range models and resource selection analysis: a reconciliation and unification. - Ecology 89: 1112-1119.
58. Moreau, G. et al. 2012. Multi-level functional responses for wildlife conservation: the case of threatened caribou in managed boreal forests. - J. Appl. Ecol. 49: 611-620.
59. Morris, D. W. 2003. Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. - Oecologia 136: 1-13.
60. Mueller, T. et al. 2011. Integrating individual search and navigation behaviors in mechanistic movement models. - Theor. Ecol. 4: 341-355.
61. Mysterud, A. and Ims, R. A. 1998. Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in trade-off situations. - Ecology 79: 1435-1441.
62. Nathan, R. 2008. An emerging movement ecology paradigm. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105: 19050-19051.
63. Potts, J. R. et al. 2014. Predicting local and non-local effects of resources on animal space use using a mechanistic step- selection model. - Methods Ecol. Evol 5: 253-262.
64. Rayl, N. D. et al. 2014. Mapping the distribution of a prey resource: neonate caribou in Newfoundland. - J. Mammal. 95: 328-339.
65. Rettie, W. J. and Messier, F. 2000. Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: its relationship to limiting factors. - Ecography 23: 466-478.
66. Rhodes, J. R. et al. 2005. A spatially explicit habitat selection model incorporating home range behavior. - Ecology 86: 1199-1205.
67. Schaefer, J. A. and Mahoney, S. P. 2013. Spatial dynamisc of the rise and fall of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Newfoundland. - Can. J. Zool. 91: 767-774.
68. Schmitz, O. J. 2008. Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. - Science 319: 952-954.
69. Sih, A. (ed.) 1998. Game theory and predator-prey response races. - Oxford Univ. Press.
70. Sih, A. et al. 2011. Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change. - Evol. Appl. 4: 367-387.
71. Trindade, M. et al. 2011. Caribou calf mortality study: a summary and analysis of the patterns and causes of caribou calf mortality in Newfoundland during a period of rapid population decline: 2003-2007. - Sustainable Development and Strategic Science, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
72. van Beest, F. M. et al. 2010. Forage quantity, quality and depletion as scale-dependent mechanisms driving habitat selection of a large browsing herbivore. - J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 910-922.
73. Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. - Ecology 70: 164-168.
74. Wulder, M. A. et al. 2008. Landsat continuity: issues and opportunities for land cover monitoring. - Remote Sens. Environ. 112: 955-969.