Identifying ecologically relevant scales of habitat selection: diel habitat selection in elk

Abstract

Abstract. Although 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).

Fire history influences large‐herbivore behavior at circadian, seasonal, and successional scales

“…, Roberts et al. ). Nocturnal foraging and diurnal inactivity are also seen in a close relative of elk, red deer Cervus elaphus (Godvik et al.…”

Contrasted habitats and individual plasticity drive the fine scale movements of juvenile green turtles in coastal ecosystems

“…The purposes of movement can vary between species and the various stages of the life cycle, for example long-distance migration to daily foraging movements. Among the multiple causes of daily movements, the search for food and predator avoidance have been largely documented in terrestrial animals [2][3][4][5][6]. For instance, elk move to protective cover of wooded areas when wolves are present [2].…”

Application of activity sensors for estimating behavioral patterns

“…We conducted this study in the Valles Caldera National Preserve (VCNP; 36,017 ha) in the Jemez Mountains of north‐central New Mexico, USA, from January to August 2014. The VCNP consisted of grasslands, ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa ) forests, mixed conifer forests of Douglas fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ), spruce (e.g., Picea engelmannii, P. pungens ), firs ( Abies concolor, A. lasiocarpa ), and aspen stands ( Populus tremuloides ; Allen and Station , Roberts ). Elevation ranged from 1,500 to >3,000 m. Climate was considered semiarid continental, and annual precipitation and snowfall averaged 58 cm (SD = 25 cm) and 305 cm (SD = 97 cm), respectively (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , Western Regional Climate Center ).…”

“…Although automated recording of animal behavior is useful for remotely estimating activity budgets, given that habitat characteristics sought out by animals often vary with behavior (i.e., foraging area characteristics vs. resting areas), perhaps the greatest potential benefit of GPS‐collar activity‐sensor data, and any other location‐measuring collar, is combining location and behavior data to relate habitat selection to behavioral states. Coupling time‐stamped location and behavioral data could allow researchers to empirically delineate behaviorally driven diel shifts in habitat selection without the need for direct observation of animals (Spencer et al , Arthur and Schwartz , Moe et al , Wilson et al , Roberts ). Even using less sophisticated activity‐sensor data alongside location data could grant researchers and land managers a more detailed understanding of species’ habitat use and a greater ability to prioritize habitat management actions in a time‐ and cost‐effective manner (Hansen et al , Rumble et al , Yamazaki et al , Wilson et al ).…”

“…Some studies have reported on use of sophisticated GPS‐collar activity sensors to delineate active and inactive behavioral states in captive elk (Naylor and Kie , Gaylord ) and European red deer ( C. elaphus ; Adrados et al , ; Löttker et al ). However, these studies do not assess the capability of GPS‐collar activity sensors to associate elk behavioral data with location data, and 3 of 4 of these studies were conducted with captive animals, some of which were habituated to humans and not at risk of predation (Adrados et al , ; Löttker et al ; Gaylord ; Roberts ). Human disturbance and predation risk can alter elk behavior, increasing frequency of vigilant behavior, running, and rapid erratic movements (Childress and Lung , Creel et al ).…”