4.5 Article

Varied tastes: home range implications of foraging-patch selection

期刊

OIKOS
卷 125, 期 1, 页码 39-49

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/oik.02005

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. University of Alberta
  2. Shell Canada Ltd.
  3. NSERC CRD
  4. Mountain Equipment Coop
  5. TD Friends of the Environment Fund
  6. Safari Club International - Northern Alberta Chapter
  7. Nature Alberta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite evidence of home range behaviour across many taxa, the mechanisms underlying the development of home ranges are still unknown. Recently, models have been developed to explore these mechanisms for both territorial and non-territorial species. One such model for a generic forager suggests animal memory and optimal foraging theory as underlying mechanisms driving forager movement and the development of stable home ranges. Although this is a promising model for ungulate home range development, assumptions of the model have yet to be evaluated. Using GPS relocation data from two populations of elk, we explored how foraging patch selection might influence the structure and development of home ranges in elk Cervus elaphus. During the summer growing season, we identified and sampled foraging patches used by elk. Points along elk paths not used for foraging were sampled identically for comparison. We contrasted 'patch' and 'nonpatch' data points, to identify foraging selection differences across herd, sex and season using a combination of directly sampled and remotely sensed covariates. In general, elk selected patches with higher biomass, cover, slope and lower traffic on the nearest road. These patch-selection results speak directly to differences between foraging areas and other areas used by elk and demonstrate that both physiographic and anthropocentric features influence foraging patch selection. Our results offer insight as to what defines a valuable foraging patch for elk and how these patches might influence the development and structure of home ranges in a free-ranging ungulate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据