Approaches to the Study of Territory Size and Shape

Abstract

▪ Abstract Intraspecific variation in territory size and shape can have strong effects on population structure and dynamics. The traditional theoretical approach to the study of territory size is based on optimality models that analyze decisions of focal residents as responses to the costs and benefits of defense. These models have stimulated numerous empirical studies showing that territory holders adjust their behavior according to rates of intrusion and availability of food. However, models of optimal territory size are applicable only in limited circumstances because they focus on unilateral decisions rather than on interactions. Furthermore, observational and experimental studies often find that territory sizes are insensitive to food supply. Recently, greater emphasis has been placed on two alternative approaches. The first concerns interactions among contiguous neighbors and how these affect use of space. In these models territory size and shape are determined by the balance of pressure exerted at boundaries or arise as the results of local rules of movement and interaction. The second alternative approach views territory size as the outcome of interactions between established residents and potential settlers attempting to acquire territories. By considering the simultaneous actions of multiple competitors, these models allow quantitative prediction of the effects of territory defense on population density and spatial patterns as well as responses to environmental change.

Stigmergy, collective actions, and animal social spacing

“…Recent studies (3,4) advocate the need to develop a general framework to explain the broad spectrum of spacing behavior we observe: from one extreme condition, with full territorial exclusion, to an intermediate situation, with overlapping home ranges, to the other extreme, with free-ranging animals that fully share the available space. Animals that deposit marks over the terrain represent a model animal system to develop such a framework.…”

“…Here, we move beyond that limitation by analyzing the collective emergence of spacing patterns resulting from animals' avoidance. We chose to focus on the endogenous mechanisms of how patterns are generated rather than asking why animals do it, which depends on the resources they aim to defend (3).…”

Helpers influence on territory use and maintenance in Alpine marmot groups

“…Adams (2001) reviewed experimental and theoretical works on home range and territory size, and showed that interactions among neighbouring individuals or groups directly shape their territory boundaries. Two main hypotheses have been proposed to explain the outcome of intergroup competition: the Group Augmentation hypothesis (GA: Kokko et al 2001;Bergmüller et al 2007) and the realized Resource Holding Potential (rRHP) hypothesis (Crofoot et al 2008).…”

Terrestrial Vertebrates of Post-Quarrying Sites in the Donbas Region of Ukraine

“…Because patch shape, along with area, determines the amount of habitat exposed to edges, patch shape may have a signifi cant eff ect on habitat occupancy by birds. Among birds, which are oft en strongly territorial, perch availability (Yosef, Grubb, 1994) and food and nesting sites appear to be particularly relevant to territory confi guration (Adams, 2001;Rolando, 2002).…”