» Articles » PMID: 33653139

Evidence of Economical Territory Selection in a Cooperative Carnivore

Overview
Journal Proc Biol Sci
Specialty Biology
Date 2021 Mar 3
PMID 33653139
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

As an outcome of natural selection, animals are probably adapted to select territories economically by maximizing benefits and minimizing costs of territory ownership. Theory and empirical precedent indicate that a primary benefit of many territories is exclusive access to food resources, and primary costs of defending and using space are associated with competition, travel and mortality risk. A recently developed mechanistic model for economical territory selection provided numerous empirically testable predictions. We tested these predictions using location data from grey wolves () in Montana, USA. As predicted, territories were smaller in areas with greater densities of prey, competitors and low-use roads, and for groups of greater size. Territory size increased before decreasing curvilinearly with greater terrain ruggedness and harvest mortalities. Our study provides evidence for the economical selection of territories as a causal mechanism underlying ecological patterns observed in a cooperative carnivore. Results demonstrate how a wide range of environmental and social conditions will influence economical behaviour and resulting space use. We expect similar responses would be observed in numerous territorial species. A mechanistic approach enables understanding how and why animals select particular territories. This knowledge can be used to enhance conservation efforts and more successfully predict effects of conservation actions.

Citing Articles

Quantifying large carnivore predation relative to human harvest on moose in an intensively managed boreal ecosystem.

Sand H, Zimmermann B, Wabakken P, Eriksen A, Wikenros C Ecol Appl. 2025; 35(1):e70000.

PMID: 39930970 PMC: 11811747. DOI: 10.1002/eap.70000.


Economical defence of resources structures territorial space use in a cooperative carnivore.

Sells S, Mitchell M, Ausband D, Luis A, Emlen D, Podruzny K Proc Biol Sci. 2022; 289(1966):20212512.

PMID: 35016539 PMC: 8753142. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.2512.


Evidence of economical territory selection in a cooperative carnivore.

Sells S, Mitchell M, Podruzny K, Gude J, Keever A, Boyd D Proc Biol Sci. 2021; 288(1946):20210108.

PMID: 33653139 PMC: 7934961. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0108.

References
1.
Sikes R . 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J Mammal. 2018; 97(3):663-688. PMC: 5909806. DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw078. View

2.
Kittle A, Anderson M, Avgar T, Baker J, Brown G, Hagens J . Wolves adapt territory size, not pack size to local habitat quality. J Anim Ecol. 2015; 84(5):1177-86. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12366. View

3.
Zimmermann B, Nelson L, Wabakken P, Sand H, Liberg O . Behavioral responses of wolves to roads: scale-dependent ambivalence. Behav Ecol. 2014; 25(6):1353-1364. PMC: 4235582. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/aru134. View

4.
Sells S, Mitchell M, Podruzny K, Gude J, Keever A, Boyd D . Evidence of economical territory selection in a cooperative carnivore. Proc Biol Sci. 2021; 288(1946):20210108. PMC: 7934961. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0108. View

5.
Borger L, Dalziel B, Fryxell J . Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett. 2008; 11(6):637-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01182.x. View