Quantifying consistent individual differences in habitat selection

Abstract

Habitat selection is a fundamental behaviour that links individuals to the resources required for survival and reproduction. Although natural selection acts on an individual's phenotype, research on habitat selection often pools inter-individual patterns to provide inferences on the population scale. Here, we expanded a traditional approach of quantifying habitat selection at the individual level to explore the potential for consistent individual differences of habitat selection. We used random coefficients in resource selection functions (RSFs) and repeatability estimates to test for variability in habitat selection. We applied our method to a detailed dataset of GPS relocations of brown bears (Ursus arctos) taken over a period of 6 years, and assessed whether they displayed repeatable individual differences in habitat selection toward two habitat types: bogs and recent timber-harvest cut blocks. In our analyses, we controlled for the availability of habitat, i.e. the functional response in habitat selection. Repeatability estimates of habitat selection toward bogs and cut blocks were 0.304 and 0.420, respectively. Therefore, 30.4 and 42.0 % of the population-scale habitat selection variability for bogs and cut blocks, respectively, was due to differences among individuals, suggesting that consistent individual variation in habitat selection exists in brown bears. Using simulations, we posit that repeatability values of habitat selection are not related to the value and significance of β estimates in RSFs. Although individual differences in habitat selection could be the results of non-exclusive factors, our results illustrate the evolutionary potential of habitat selection.

Habitat segregation between brown bears and gray wolves in a human‐dominated landscape

“…Therefore, reproductive success, sex‐specific differences, and den location are factors that could explain the observed habitat selection variation among wolves. Individual variation in habitat selection and daily activity pattern have already been reported for bears (Gillies et al., ; Leclerc et al., ; Ordiz, Sæbø, Kindberg, Swenson, & Støen, ) and wolves (Hebblewhite & Merrill, ) and could be explained by differences in personality traits (Réale, Dingemanse, Kazem, & Wright, ). The large intraspecific variation found in our study may help wolves and bears to respond to intra‐ and interspecific competition and may promote coexistence (Vellend, ).…”

“…To account for individual variability in habitat selection (Leclerc et al., ; Uboni, Smith, Mao, Stahler, & Vucetich, ), individuals that were monitored in multiple years were considered as different individuals in each year in the K‐select analysis. Because wolves and bears are mostly active from dusk to dawn (Ordiz et al., ; Sand, Zimmermann, Wabakken, Andrèn, & Pedersen, ), we also separated habitat selection for each individual into day and night, using monthly sunset and sunrise tables.…”

Body size and lean mass of brown bears across and within four diverse ecosystems

“…There is a growing body of literature across a range of taxa identifying the importance of variation in behavior and personality to individual and population health, suggesting that populations of generalist species are often a collection of specialized individuals (Bolnick et al ., , ; Wolf et al ., ; Biro & Stamps, ; Smith & Blumstein, ; Dall et al ., ). Differences in realized foraging niches within populations have been seen in brown bears (Leclerc et al ., ) as well as other species (e.g. wolves – Semmens et al ., ; sea lions – Villegas‐Amtmann et al ., ; sea otter – Tinker et al ., ) and individual specialization may increase at higher population densities (Tinker et al ., ) as potential niche diversity increases with ecosystem complexity (i.e.…”

Fluctuating mast production does not drive Scandinavian brown bear behavior

“…) are used for oat production. When using fields, we suggest that foraging on oat fields could be a behavior acquired through maternal learning (Morehouse et al ) or that some individuals in our population may be generally more risk tolerant and bolder towards encountering humans than others (Leclerc et al ).…”