Limits...
How do animal territories form and change? Lessons from 20 years of mechanistic modelling.

Potts JR, Lewis MA - Proc. Biol. Sci. (2014)

Bottom Line: At the population level, animals often segregate into distinct territorial areas.We detail the two main strands to this research: partial differential equations and individual-based approaches, showing what each has offered to our understanding of territoriality and how they can be unified.We explain how they are related to other approaches to studying territories and home ranges, and point towards possible future directions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Alberta, , Edmonton, , Alberta, Canada , T6G 2G1, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, , Edmonton, , Alberta, Canada , T6G 2G1.

ABSTRACT
Territory formation is ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. At the individual level, various behaviours attempt to exclude conspecifics from regions of space. At the population level, animals often segregate into distinct territorial areas. Consequently, it should be possible to derive territorial patterns from the underlying behavioural processes of animal movements and interactions. Such derivations are an important element in the development of an ecological theory that can predict the effects of changing conditions on territorial populations. Here, we review the approaches developed over the past 20 years or so, which go under the umbrella of 'mechanistic territorial models'. We detail the two main strands to this research: partial differential equations and individual-based approaches, showing what each has offered to our understanding of territoriality and how they can be unified. We explain how they are related to other approaches to studying territories and home ranges, and point towards possible future directions.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

The individual-based territoriality model with example output. The left-handpanel represents a hypothetical snapshot in time of the position of twoterritorial random walkers (animals), the red and blue dots, and theirterritories, represented by the red and blue open circles, respectively. Ifa red (blue) open circle is present at a lattice site, it means that the red(blue) animal has been in that location sometime in the pastTAS timesteps. The absence of any scent marksat coordinates (5,1), (2,3) and (2,4) implies that no animal has occupiedthose coordinates within a time TAS, i.e. thisis interstitial area. The next time the blue animal moves, it can go to anyof the four adjacent lattice sites with equal probability, whereas the redanimal is constrained to move either up or right. The right-hand paneldemonstrates the sort of home range patterns that can arise from such amodel. Reproduced from Giuggioli et al. [17]. (Online version incolour.)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4043092&req=5

RSPB20140231F2: The individual-based territoriality model with example output. The left-handpanel represents a hypothetical snapshot in time of the position of twoterritorial random walkers (animals), the red and blue dots, and theirterritories, represented by the red and blue open circles, respectively. Ifa red (blue) open circle is present at a lattice site, it means that the red(blue) animal has been in that location sometime in the pastTAS timesteps. The absence of any scent marksat coordinates (5,1), (2,3) and (2,4) implies that no animal has occupiedthose coordinates within a time TAS, i.e. thisis interstitial area. The next time the blue animal moves, it can go to anyof the four adjacent lattice sites with equal probability, whereas the redanimal is constrained to move either up or right. The right-hand paneldemonstrates the sort of home range patterns that can arise from such amodel. Reproduced from Giuggioli et al. [17]. (Online version incolour.)

Mentions: The so-called ‘territorial random walk’ models animals asnearest-neighbour lattice random walkers, each of whom deposits scent as it moves,which lasts for a finite amount of time, the ‘active scent time’(TAS), after which other (conspecific) animals nolonger respond to the mark as fresh (figure2). They are able to move to any nearest-neighbour lattice site unless thesite contains active scent of a conspecific, in other words unless that site is inthe conspecific's territory [19]. Figure 2.


How do animal territories form and change? Lessons from 20 years of mechanistic modelling.

Potts JR, Lewis MA - Proc. Biol. Sci. (2014)

The individual-based territoriality model with example output. The left-handpanel represents a hypothetical snapshot in time of the position of twoterritorial random walkers (animals), the red and blue dots, and theirterritories, represented by the red and blue open circles, respectively. Ifa red (blue) open circle is present at a lattice site, it means that the red(blue) animal has been in that location sometime in the pastTAS timesteps. The absence of any scent marksat coordinates (5,1), (2,3) and (2,4) implies that no animal has occupiedthose coordinates within a time TAS, i.e. thisis interstitial area. The next time the blue animal moves, it can go to anyof the four adjacent lattice sites with equal probability, whereas the redanimal is constrained to move either up or right. The right-hand paneldemonstrates the sort of home range patterns that can arise from such amodel. Reproduced from Giuggioli et al. [17]. (Online version incolour.)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4043092&req=5

RSPB20140231F2: The individual-based territoriality model with example output. The left-handpanel represents a hypothetical snapshot in time of the position of twoterritorial random walkers (animals), the red and blue dots, and theirterritories, represented by the red and blue open circles, respectively. Ifa red (blue) open circle is present at a lattice site, it means that the red(blue) animal has been in that location sometime in the pastTAS timesteps. The absence of any scent marksat coordinates (5,1), (2,3) and (2,4) implies that no animal has occupiedthose coordinates within a time TAS, i.e. thisis interstitial area. The next time the blue animal moves, it can go to anyof the four adjacent lattice sites with equal probability, whereas the redanimal is constrained to move either up or right. The right-hand paneldemonstrates the sort of home range patterns that can arise from such amodel. Reproduced from Giuggioli et al. [17]. (Online version incolour.)
Mentions: The so-called ‘territorial random walk’ models animals asnearest-neighbour lattice random walkers, each of whom deposits scent as it moves,which lasts for a finite amount of time, the ‘active scent time’(TAS), after which other (conspecific) animals nolonger respond to the mark as fresh (figure2). They are able to move to any nearest-neighbour lattice site unless thesite contains active scent of a conspecific, in other words unless that site is inthe conspecific's territory [19]. Figure 2.

Bottom Line: At the population level, animals often segregate into distinct territorial areas.We detail the two main strands to this research: partial differential equations and individual-based approaches, showing what each has offered to our understanding of territoriality and how they can be unified.We explain how they are related to other approaches to studying territories and home ranges, and point towards possible future directions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Alberta, , Edmonton, , Alberta, Canada , T6G 2G1, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, , Edmonton, , Alberta, Canada , T6G 2G1.

ABSTRACT
Territory formation is ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. At the individual level, various behaviours attempt to exclude conspecifics from regions of space. At the population level, animals often segregate into distinct territorial areas. Consequently, it should be possible to derive territorial patterns from the underlying behavioural processes of animal movements and interactions. Such derivations are an important element in the development of an ecological theory that can predict the effects of changing conditions on territorial populations. Here, we review the approaches developed over the past 20 years or so, which go under the umbrella of 'mechanistic territorial models'. We detail the two main strands to this research: partial differential equations and individual-based approaches, showing what each has offered to our understanding of territoriality and how they can be unified. We explain how they are related to other approaches to studying territories and home ranges, and point towards possible future directions.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus