PCI Ecology

Title

How optimal foragers should respond to habitat changes? On the consequences of habitat conversion.use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors

Vincent Calcagno, Frederic Hamelin, Ludovic Mailleret, Frederic GrognardPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year

2018

Picture

Abstract

The Marginal Value Theorem (MVT) provides a framework to predict how habitat modifications related to the distribution of resources over patches should impact the realized fitness of individuals and their optimal rate of movement (or patch residence times) across the habitat. Most MVT theory has focused on the consequences of changing the shape of the gain functions in some patches, describing for instance patch enrichment. However an alternative form of habitat modification is habitat conversion, whereby patches are converted from one existing type to another (e.g. closed habitat to open habitat). In such a case the set of gain functions existing in the habitat does not change, only their relative frequencies does. This has received comparatively very little attention in the context of the MVT. Here we analyze mathematically the consequences of habitat conversion under the MVT. We study how realized fitness and the average rate of movement should respond to changes in the frequency distribution of patch-types, and how they should covary. We further compare the response of optimal and non-plastic foragers. We find that the initial pattern of patch-exploitation in a habitat, as characterized by ρINTRA, the regression slope of patch yields over residence times, can help predict the qualitative responses of fitness and movement rate following habitat conversion. We also find that for some habitat conversion patterns, optimal and non-plastic foragers exhibit qualitatively different responses, and that adaptive foragers can have opposite responses in the early and late phases following habitat conversion. We suggest taking into account behavioral responses may help better understand the ecological consequences of habitat conversion.

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@ecology.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint.

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@ecology.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint.

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@ecology.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint.

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords

behavior, movement, modeling, optimal foraging theory, patchy habitats, plasticity

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields

Behaviour & Ethology, Dispersal & Migration, Foraging, Landscape ecology, Spatial ecology, Metacommunities & Metapopulations, Theoretical ecology

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2018-03-05 10:42:11

Recommender

Francois-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY