2006
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3486
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection

Abstract: Individuals are predicted to maximize lifetime reproductive success (LRS) through selective use of resources; however, a wide range of ecological and social processes may prevent individuals from always using the highest-quality resources available. Resource selection functions (RSFs) estimate the relative amount of time an individual spends using a resource as a function of the proportional availability of that resource. We quantified the association between LRS and coefficients of individual-based RSFs descr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

12
199
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(220 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
12
199
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This may reflect variation in the root causes of heterogeneity in each of these measures: for example, age at primiparity is expected to be strongly determined by conditions in the early part of life, such as density and weather in the year of birth (see Forchhammer et al 2001), while dominance is probably determined by the quality of habitat accessed and home range throughout life (see Clutton-Brock et al 1982). Lifetime measures of fitness have, in contrast, been shown to be determined by both early environment (Kruuk et al 1999b) and the strength of a hind's selection for Agrostis/Festuca grassland during her lifespan (McLoughlin et al 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may reflect variation in the root causes of heterogeneity in each of these measures: for example, age at primiparity is expected to be strongly determined by conditions in the early part of life, such as density and weather in the year of birth (see Forchhammer et al 2001), while dominance is probably determined by the quality of habitat accessed and home range throughout life (see Clutton-Brock et al 1982). Lifetime measures of fitness have, in contrast, been shown to be determined by both early environment (Kruuk et al 1999b) and the strength of a hind's selection for Agrostis/Festuca grassland during her lifespan (McLoughlin et al 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Habitat selection decisions can vary broadly among members of a population [5 -7], and this behavioural plasticity can yield different fitness payoffs [8]. Nevertheless, most habitat selection studies do not account for the complexity of the selection process (i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, most habitat selection studies do not account for the complexity of the selection process (i.e. no multivariate assessment), or when they do, the fitness consequences of selection decisions are generally not assessed [3,8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many factors influence elk habitat selection, including food availability and quality, shelter, cover, predator avoidance, temperature, water availability, elevation, slope, and snow conditions [17][18][19]. Density of conspecifics may also influence selection [20,21]. Habitat use in relation to forest cover and productive foraging habitats has been well studied in elk [22][23][24][25][26][27]; however, selection of forest cover types in heterogeneous forest structures remains less clear.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%