Abstract

Niche separation among species with similar resource requirements can be expressed at various spatiotemporal scales, from the resource components selected at feeding sites to habitat and home range occupation and ultimately geographic distribution ranges. African large herbivores present a challenge to niche theory because multiple species commonly overlap both spatially and in vegetation components consumed. Aided by GPS telemetry, we investigated the space use patterns of two large grazers that are frequently associated in mixed‐species aggregations. Specifically, we compared a generalist grazer with hindgut fermentation (plains zebra) with a similar‐sized grazing ruminant (blue wildebeest) in west‐central Kruger National Park, South Africa. We found that herds of the two species overlapped substantially in the home ranges that they occupied, but exploited spatially distinct foraging arenas for periods lasting several days or weeks within these ranges. Moreover, wildebeest and zebra differed in duration of settlement, extent of areas occupied during settlement, consequent exploitation intensity per unit area, proportion of time spent within foraging arenas relative to roaming interludes, and movement rates while within these arenas. In particular, wildebeest herds concentrated within small areas for prolonged periods, while zebra herds used more foraging arenas but exploited them for briefer periods. Both species overlapped substantially in habitat use, although wildebeest more strongly favored gabbro uplands and sodic sites presenting short grass lawns while zebra made greater use of areas with a taller grass cover. Hence resource partitioning was expressed mainly through behavioral distinctions in patch exploitation at foraging arena scale rather than in home range or habitat separation. Although zebra may have been partially excluded from the grasslands kept short by wildebeest, these sites formed only a small part of the wider ranges utilized by zebra, thereby restricting the competitive consequences. Hence spatially nested resource partitioning of this form contributes to the coexistence of these two grazers, and may be a mechanism enabling niche separation among other species.

Highlights

  • The ecological niche concept expresses the functional outcomes of the anatomy, physiology and behavior of a species for its distribution and abundance (Chase and Leibold 2003)

  • We focus on distinctions in space use patterns within the home ranges of individual herds of wildebeest and zebra at the scale of foraging arenas (FAs) exploited for periods of several days or weeks during times of day when foraging activity predominates (Owen-Smith and Martin 2015)

  • Annual ranges of the five wildebeest herds that moved between seasonally separated home ranges encompassed 50–175 km2, while those of three herds that showed little seasonal shift covered around 17–52 km2

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The ecological niche concept expresses the functional outcomes of the anatomy, physiology and behavior of a species for its distribution and abundance (Chase and Leibold 2003). These phenotypic attributes govern how individual organisms obtain shelter from thermal extremes. Species with overlapping food requirements can coexist by seeking these resources in different places or at different times, or by exploiting them in different ways (Hardin 1960). Distinct responses to the risk of predation can lead to differences in habitat occupation between species with similar resource requirements (Kotler 1984). Mixed-species associations could reduce individual exposure to predation, but at the cost of heightened competition for shared resources (Stensland et al 2003)

Methods
Results
Conclusion

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.