Land‐use change alters associations between personality and microhabitat selection

Abstract

Ecologists commonly assess ecological patterns at the population level, focusing on the average response of all individuals within a population, but to predict how populations will respond to land‐use change we must understand how changes to habitat differentially affect individuals within a population. For example, forest management is a widespread type of land‐use that impacts wildlife through the loss of key habitat features, but individuals within a population may vary in their responses to this loss due to differences in habitat selection among individuals. Specifically, intraspecific variation in habitat selection has been linked to animal personalities (i.e., consistent behavioral differences among conspecifics), but previous research has not examined whether the relationship between personality and habitat selection is influenced by land‐use change. To address this knowledge gap, we tested the hypothesis that land‐use change alters the association between personality and microhabitat selection in small mammals. Specifically, we investigated two main questions: (1) To what extent are personality type and microhabitat selection correlated among conspecifics? (2) Does land‐use change alter individual patterns of microhabitat selection? To answer these questions, we conducted a large‐scale field experiment over 4 years, contrasting unmanaged forest (control) with managed forest (two silvicultural treatments) in Maine, USA. We examined the relationships between habitat selection and personality traits in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and southern red‐backed voles (Myodes gapperi). We found that personality traits were correlated with microhabitat selection at multiple spatial scales. Furthermore, land‐use change altered these patterns of selection; resulting in either the loss of personality‐associated selection or in novel patterns of selection in managed forests. These findings suggest that promoting structural complexity at multiple spatial scales, such as by interspersing stands of mature forest with managed stands, may maintain a variety of intraspecific habitat selection patterns and the associated ecological outcomes.

Predation risk and personality influence seed predation and dispersal by a scatter‐hoarding small mammal

“…Our finding that individuals exhibiting boldness in the open‐field test were more likely to select for covered sites could evidence a competitive advantage of individuals willing to explore risky areas outcompeting more timid individuals for better foraging sites. These findings are in line with recent work in our study system, where it was found that bolder voles selected microhabitats with more food resources (Brehm & Mortelliti, 2021). Here, these individuals also had a higher probability of selecting high‐quality seeds, lending support for the idea that they may have increased competitive ability over more timid individuals.…”

“…In this study, we investigated these relationships, pursuing the following objectives: objective 1: determine whether personality predicts foraging site selection in southern red‐backed voles; objective 2: assess whether foraging decisions vary with personality and/or microsite selection; and objective 3: investigate whether personality and perceived risk interact to mediate foraging outcomes. Following previous findings showing that individual microhabitat use varies with personality (Bonnot et al, 2018; Schirmer et al, 2019), we predict that personality in southern red‐backed voles will mediate foraging site selection, specifically predicting that more active voles will select sheltered sites more often, in line with findings from Brehm and Mortelliti (2021) on vole microhabitat use. Additionally, it has been found that bolder voles select for areas with more food resources, potentially demonstrating a competitive advantage (Brehm & Mortelliti, 2021).…”

“…Following previous findings showing that individual microhabitat use varies with personality (Bonnot et al, 2018; Schirmer et al, 2019), we predict that personality in southern red‐backed voles will mediate foraging site selection, specifically predicting that more active voles will select sheltered sites more often, in line with findings from Brehm and Mortelliti (2021) on vole microhabitat use. Additionally, it has been found that bolder voles select for areas with more food resources, potentially demonstrating a competitive advantage (Brehm & Mortelliti, 2021). Therefore, we predict that bolder voles will preferentially select higher quality seeds.…”

“…Microhabitat selection, such as where individuals spend time within their home range (which directly affects foraging site selection), also varies among individuals, with individual personality playing an important role in the selection of features such as cover, refuge, and food resources (Brehm & Mortelliti, 2021; Schirmer et al, 2019). As an example, in our study system, it has been found that more active small mammals select for increased ground cover and more docile individuals avoid areas with more food resources (Brehm & Mortelliti, 2021). Therefore, personality can mediate foraging behavior directly and through selection of foraging site, which in turn affects foraging decisions due to altering perceived predation risk.…”

Dynamic winter weather moderates movement and resource selection of wild turkeys at high‐latitude range limits

“…At the same time, the magnitude and incidence of extreme weather events are expected to increase (IPCC, 2022), so species' persistence along an expanding high‐latitude range limit will also depend, in part, on the ability of individuals to contend with extreme, short‐term weather events (Early & Sax, 2011). As both land use and climate change interact to shape species' distributions through time (Brehm & Mortelliti, 2021; Saunders et al, 2022), identifying behavioral responses to bioclimatic variability as a function of landscape characteristics, and the resources they provide, can yield a more mechanistic understanding to predict future range shifts.…”