Movement links the distribution of habitats with the social environment of animals using those habitats; yet integrating movement, habitat selection, and socioecology remains an opportunity. Here, our objective was to disentangle the roles of habitat selection and social association as drivers of collective movement in a gregarious ungulate. To accomplish this objective, we (1) assessed whether socially familiar individuals form discrete social communities and whether social communities have high spatial, but not necessarily temporal, overlap and (2) modelled the relationship between collective movement and selection of foraging habitats using socially informed integrated step selection analysis. Based on assignment of individuals to social communities and home range overlap analyses, individuals assorted into discrete social communities and these communities had high spatial overlap. By unifying social network analysis with movement ecology, we identified state-dependent social association, where individuals were less cohesive when foraging, but were cohesive when moving collectively between foraging patches. Our study demonstrates that social behaviour and space use are inter-related based on spatial overlap of social communities and state-dependent habitat selection. Movement, habitat selection, and social behaviour are linked in theory. Here, we put these concepts into practice to demonstrate that movement is the glue connecting individual habitat selection to the social environment.

No abstract

Consistent individual differences in behavior, commonly termed animal personality, are a widespread phenomenon across taxa that have important consequences for fitness, natural selection, and trophic interactions. Animal personality research may prove useful in several conservation contexts, but which contexts remains to be determined. We conducted a structured literature review of 654 studies identified by combining search terms for animal personality and various conservation subfields. We scored the relevance of personality and conservation issues for each study to identify which studies meaningfully integrated the 2 fields as opposed to surface‐level connections or vague allusions. We found a taxonomic bias toward mammals (29% of all studies). Very few amphibian or reptile studies applied personality research to conservation issues (6% each). Climate change (21%), invasive species (15%), and captive breeding and reintroduction (13%) were the most abundant conservation subfields that occurred in our search, though a substantial proportion of these papers weakly integrated conservation and animal personality (climate change 54%, invasive species 51%, captive breeding and reintroduction 40%). Based on our results, we recommend that researchers strive for consistent and broadly applicable terminology when describing consistent behavioral differences to minimize confusion and improve the searchability of research. We identify several gaps in the literature that appear to be promising and fruitful avenues for future research, such as disease transmission as a function of sociability or exploration as a driver of space use in protected areas. Practitioners can begin informing future conservation efforts with knowledge gained from animal personality research.