Abstract
AbstractAlthough organisms make resource selection decisions at multiple spatiotemporal scales, not all scales are ecologically relevant to any given organism. Ecological patterns and rhythms such as behavioral and climatic patterns may provide a consistent method for identifying ecologically relevant scales of habitat selection. Using elk (Cervus canadensis) as an example species, we sought to test the ability of behavioral patterns to empirically partition diel scales for modeling habitat selection. We used model selection to partition diel scales by shifts in dominant behavior and then used resource selection probability functions to model elk habitat selection hierarchically at diel scales within seasons. Model selection distinguished four diel temporal partitions following elk crepuscular behavioral patterns: dawn, midday, dusk, and night. Across seasons, model‐averaged coefficients indicated that elk shifted from selecting grassland cover at dawn/dusk, to selecting for greater canopy and forest cover at midday, and then to areas with greater herbaceous biomass at night. Top models changed between diel intervals in spring and fall but stayed the same across diel intervals in winter and summer. In winter, elk selected for southern aspects during midday, for unburned areas at dawn/dusk, and for areas burned within 1–3 yr at dawn/dusk and night. In spring, elk selected for northern aspects and for areas burned within 1–3 yr at midday, for areas farther from roads at dawn/dusk and midday, and for areas farther from water at midday. In summer, elk changed diel preferences for fewer covariates: At dawn/dusk and midday, elk selected for areas farther from water and avoided forest cover, and at night, elk selected for areas burned within 1–3 yr. In fall, elk selected for areas burned the previous year at dawn/dusk and night, for higher elevations at midday, and for areas closer water at night. Using behavioral patterns to identify ecologically relevant scales can help identify overlooked habitat requirements such as diel changes in preference for fire history, forage availability, and cover. We show that the ecological relevancy of a given scale (e.g., a diel temporal scale) can change throughout a given extent (e.g., across seasons).
Highlights
How organisms make resource selection decisions varies in magnitude and directionality across multiple hierarchical spatiotemporal scales (Levin1992, Papastamatiou et al 2009), but not all scales are ecologically relevant to any given organism, nor are all scales relevant at all periods of a given temporal cycle (Holling 1992, Nash et al 2014)
Identifying ecologically relevant scales has been a concern in ecology for decades (Johnson 1980) and is critical for understanding limits of species’ perception of resources, the hierarchical nature of habitat selection decisionmaking by animals, and species’ spatiotemporal resource requirements (Allen and Holling 2008, Mayor et al 2009, van Beest et al 2011)
We chose to use climatic patterns to create seasonal partitions because climate is known to drive elk habitat selection at a seasonal scale (Wolf 2003, Beck et al 2013, Middleton et al 2013) and because we found that overall diel behavioral patterns were similar among seasons and were not useful for seasonal-scale partitioning (Fig. 2)
Summary
How organisms make resource selection decisions varies in magnitude and directionality across multiple hierarchical spatiotemporal scales (Levin1992, Papastamatiou et al 2009), but not all scales are ecologically relevant to any given organism, nor are all scales relevant at all periods of a given temporal cycle (Holling 1992, Nash et al 2014). The broadest and finest limits of an organism’s perception curtail multiple, relatively discrete, ecologically relevant scales at which the organism makes resource selection decisions (Morris 1992), and between these relevant scales lie ranges of irrelevant or less relevant scales (Holling 1992). Identifying ecologically relevant scales has been a concern in ecology for decades (Johnson 1980) and is critical for understanding limits of species’ perception of resources, the hierarchical nature of habitat selection decisionmaking by animals, and species’ spatiotemporal resource requirements (Allen and Holling 2008, Mayor et al 2009, van Beest et al 2011). One can detect broader patterns in home range utilization, migratory routes, and landscape-scale distribution (van Beest et al 2010), and at finer spatial and temporal scales, one may glean more detailed information, such as forage species consumed, or hourly cover preferences (Shipley et al 1999, Burks et al 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
