IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v438y2020ics0304380020303975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economics of territory selection

Author

Listed:
  • Sells, Sarah N.
  • Mitchell, Michael S.

Abstract

Territorial behavior is a fundamental and conspicuous behavior within numerous species, but the mechanisms driving territory selection remain uncertain. Theory and empirical precedent indicate that many animals select territories economically to satisfy resource requirements for survival and reproduction, based on benefits of food resources and costs of competition and travel. Costs of competition may vary by competitive ability, and costs of predation risk may also drive territory selection. Habitat structure, resource requirements, conspecific density, and predator distribution and abundance are likely to further influence territorial behavior. We developed a mechanistic, spatially-explicit, individual-based model to better understand how animals select particular territories. The model was based on optimal selection of individual patches for inclusion in a territory according to their net value, i.e., benefits (food resources) minus costs (travel, competition, predation risk). Simulations produced predictions for what may be observed empirically if such optimization drives placement and characteristics of territories. Simulations consisted of sequential, iterative selection of territories by simulated animals that interacted to defend and maintain territories. Results explain why certain patterns in space use are commonly observed, and when and why these patterns may differ from the norm. For example, more clumped or abundant food resources are predicted to result, on average, in smaller territories with more overlap. Strongly different resource requirements for individuals or groups in a population will directly affect space use and are predicted to cause different responses under identical conditions. Territories are predicted to decrease in size with increasing population density, which can enable a population's density of territories to change at faster rates than their spatial distribution. Due to competition, less competitive territory-holders are generally predicted to have larger territories in order to accumulate sufficient resources, which could produce an ideal despotic distribution of territories. Interestingly, territory size is predicted to often show a curvilinear response to increases in predator densities, and territories are predicted to be larger where predators are more clumped in distribution. Predictions consistent with empirical observations provide support for optimal patch selection as a mechanism for the economical territories of animals commonly observed in nature.

Suggested Citation

  • Sells, Sarah N. & Mitchell, Michael S., 2020. "The economics of territory selection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:438:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020303975
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380020303975
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109329?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitchell, Michael S. & Powell, Roger A., 2008. "Estimated home ranges can misrepresent habitat relationships on patchy landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 216(3), pages 409-414.
    2. Grimm, Volker & Berger, Uta & DeAngelis, Donald L. & Polhill, J. Gary & Giske, Jarl & Railsback, Steven F., 2010. "The ODD protocol: A review and first update," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(23), pages 2760-2768.
    3. Luca Giuggioli & Jonathan R Potts & Stephen Harris, 2011. "Animal Interactions and the Emergence of Territoriality," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-9, March.
    4. Kira A. Cassidy & Daniel R. MacNulty & Daniel R. Stahler & Douglas W. Smith & L. David Mech, 2015. "Group composition effects on aggressive interpack interactions of gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1352-1360.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Crouse, Kristin N. & Desai, Nisarg P. & Cassidy, Kira A. & Stahler, Erin E. & Lehman, Clarence L. & Wilson, Michael L., 2022. "Larger territories reduce mortality risk for chimpanzees, wolves, and agents: Multiple lines of evidence in a model validation framework," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 471(C).
    2. Carter, Neil & Levin, Simon & Barlow, Adam & Grimm, Volker, 2015. "Modeling tiger population and territory dynamics using an agent-based approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 312(C), pages 347-362.
    3. Tardy, Olivia & Lenglos, Christophe & Lai, Sandra & Berteaux, Dominique & Leighton, Patrick A., 2023. "Rabies transmission in the Arctic: An agent-based model reveals the effects of broad-scale movement strategies on contact risk between Arctic foxes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 476(C).
    4. Vimercati, Giovanni & Hui, Cang & Davies, Sarah J. & Measey, G. John, 2017. "Integrating age structured and landscape resistance models to disentangle invasion dynamics of a pond-breeding anuran," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 356(C), pages 104-116.
    5. Barbaro, Alethea B.T. & Chayes, Lincoln & D’Orsogna, Maria R., 2013. "Territorial developments based on graffiti: A statistical mechanics approach," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(1), pages 252-270.
    6. Jagadish, Arundhati & Dwivedi, Puneet & McEntire, Kira D. & Chandar, Mamta, 2019. "Agent-based modeling of “cleaner” cookstove adoption and woodfuel use: An integrative empirical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Hinker, Jonas & Hemkendreis, Christian & Drewing, Emily & März, Steven & Hidalgo Rodríguez, Diego I. & Myrzik, Johanna M.A., 2017. "A novel conceptual model facilitating the derivation of agent-based models for analyzing socio-technical optimality gaps in the energy domain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1219-1230.
    8. Tianran Ding & Wouter Achten, 2023. "Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359527, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Jens Lausen & Moritz Kohlhase, 2021. "Internalizing the externalities of overfunding: an agent-based model approach for analyzing the market dynamics on crowdfunding platforms," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(9), pages 1387-1430, November.
    10. Crevier, Lucas Phillip & Salkeld, Joseph H & Marley, Jessa & Parrott, Lael, 2021. "Making the best possible choice: Using agent-based modelling to inform wildlife management in small communities," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 446(C).
    11. Ulfia A. Lenfers & Julius Weyl & Thomas Clemen, 2018. "Firewood Collection in South Africa: Adaptive Behavior in Social-Ecological Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, August.
    12. David, Viviane & Joachim, Sandrine & Tebby, Cleo & Porcher, Jean-Marc & Beaudouin, Rémy, 2019. "Modelling population dynamics in mesocosms using an individual-based model coupled to a bioenergetics model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 398(C), pages 55-66.
    13. Lorscheid, Iris & Meyer, Matthias, 2016. "Divide and conquer: Configuring submodels for valid and efficient analyses of complex simulation models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 326(C), pages 152-161.
    14. Moritz Kersting & Andreas Bossert & Leif Sörensen & Benjamin Wacker & Jan Chr. Schlüter, 2021. "Predicting effectiveness of countermeasures during the COVID-19 outbreak in South Africa using agent-based simulation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Meli, Mattia & Auclerc, Apolline & Palmqvist, Annemette & Forbes, Valery E. & Grimm, Volker, 2013. "Population-level consequences of spatially heterogeneous exposure to heavy metals in soil: An individual-based model of springtails," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 338-351.
    16. Groeneveld, Jürgen & Johst, Karin & Kawaguchi, So & Meyer, Bettina & Teschke, Mathias & Grimm, Volker, 2015. "How biological clocks and changing environmental conditions determine local population growth and species distribution in Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba): a conceptual model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 303(C), pages 78-86.
    17. Henzler, Julia & Weise, Hanna & Enright, Neal J. & Zander, Susanne & Tietjen, Britta, 2018. "A squeeze in the suitable fire interval: Simulating the persistence of fire-killed plants in a Mediterranean-type ecosystem under drier conditions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 389(C), pages 41-49.
    18. Kanapaux, William & Kiker, Gregory A., 2013. "Development and testing of an object-oriented model for adaptively managing human disturbance of least tern (Sternula antillarum) nesting habitat," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 268(C), pages 64-77.
    19. Fenintsoa Andriamasinoro & Raphael Danino-Perraud, 2021. "Use of artificial intelligence to assess mineral substance criticality in the French market: the example of cobalt," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(1), pages 19-37, April.
    20. Claudia Dislich & Elisabeth Hettig & Jan Salecker & Johannes Heinonen & Jann Lay & Katrin M Meyer & Kerstin Wiegand & Suria Tarigan, 2018. "Land-use change in oil palm dominated tropical landscapes—An agent-based model to explore ecological and socio-economic trade-offs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:438:y:2020:i:c:s0304380020303975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.