Evaluating the role of body size and habitat type in movement behavior in human‐dominated systems: A frog's eye view

Abstract

Animal movement is a key process that connects and maintains populations on the landscape, yet for most species, we do not understand how intrinsic and extrinsic factors interact to influence individual movement behavior. Land‐use/land‐cover changes highlight that connectivity among populations will depend upon an individual's ability to traverse habitats, which may vary as a result of habitat permeability, individual condition, or a combination of these factors. We examined the effects of intrinsic (body size) and extrinsic (habitat type) factors on desiccation tolerance, movement, and orientation in three anuran species (American toads, Anaxyrus americanus ; northern leopard frogs, Lithobates pipiens ; and Blanchard's cricket frogs, Acris blanchardi ) using laboratory and field studies to connect the effects of susceptibility to desiccation, size, and movement behavior in single‐habitat types and at habitat edges. Smaller anurans were more vulnerable to desiccation, particularly for species that metamorphose at relatively small sizes. Habitat type had the strongest effect on movement, while body size had more situational and species‐specific effects on movement. We found that individuals moved the farthest in habitat types that, when given the choice, they oriented away from, suggesting that these habitats are less favorable and could represent barriers to movement. Overall, our work demonstrated that differences in habitat type had strong impacts on individual movement behavior and influenced choices at habitat edges. By integrating intrinsic and extrinsic factors into our study, we provided evidence that population connectivity may be influenced not only by the habitat matrix but also by the condition of the individuals leaving the habitat patch.

Can cattle grazing contribute to butterfly habitat? Using butterfly behavior as an index of habitat quality in an agroecosystem

“…Consistent with many previous studies on animal movement (e.g. Zalucki and Kitching, 1982;Kuefler and Haddad, 2006;Dumont et al, 2007;Dias et al, 2009;Avgar et al, 2013;Dodge et al, 2014;Murphy and Boone, 2022), we observed strong effects of resource availability on the path scale on butterfly diffusion rates. Here we discuss mainly silvery blue diffusion rate responses to resources, since we were unable to include the results of the ochre ringlet PLSR model due to poor model fit.…”

“…Animal movement behavior has been used in many contexts to evaluate aspects of habitat or habitat quality (e.g. Dumont et al, 2007;Korösi et al, 2008;Dias et al, 2009;Dodge et al, 2014;Crone et al, 2019;Murphy and Boone, 2022;Pugesek and Crone, 2022); however, studies of butterfly movement have rarely been applied to evaluate habitat under grazing management (Bussan, 2022; but see Schtickzelle et al, 2007;Ehl et al, 2019). We quantified withinhabitat diffusion rates to understand butterfly perceptions of habitat quality in conventional grazing, conservation grazing, and native upland prairie.…”

“…matrix habitat, with border habitat as a third option) (e.g. Schultz, 1998;Ross et al, 2005;Murphy and Boone, 2022). We applied diffusion rates as a more sensitive indicator of habitat quality on a fine scale and show that conservation grazing may be an important source of intermediate quality habitat in the landscape.…”

“…Many studies have quantified movement behavior to describe some aspect of habitat, land cover, or resources animals encounter (e.g. Revilla et al, 2004;Stevens et al, 2004;de Knegt et al, 2007;Kuefler et al, 2010;Lebeau et al, 2015;Murphy and Boone, 2022). An animal's movement parameters (i.e.…”