Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:30:27.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Linking functional responses and foraging behaviour to population dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2009

By
Andrew W. Illius
Edited by
Kjell Danell,
Roger Bergström,
Patrick Duncan and
John Pastor
Andrew W. Illius
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Kjell Danell
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Roger Bergström
Affiliation:
The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden
Patrick Duncan
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris
John Pastor
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This chapter reviews the connection between large herbivores and their food sources, and asks how the population dynamics of large herbivores are related to their foraging behaviour, diet selection and food intake. Large herbivores are a well‐studied group because they include cattle and sheep, which have been the subjects of a huge amount of agricultural research. Accordingly, much is known, or can be deduced, about their response to resources.

It is useful to distinguish the way consumption rate responds to food abundance (i.e. the functional response) from the way the size of the consumer population responds to food consumption (the numerical response). The first two sections in the chapter review the mechanistic approach to describing the functional response, and its implications, and the next section discusses the modelling of the numerical response. The final two sections consider the relationship between large herbivore population dynamics and the selection and consumption of resources.

RECENT MODELS OF FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE

The functional response describes how a consumer's rate of food intake varies with the abundance of food. It is, therefore, a crucial link in consumer‐resource dynamics, as well as being fundamental to classical foraging models that predict the diet or patch residence time that would maximize intake rate. Hobbs et al. (2003) discuss and distinguish mechanistic models of functional response and more empirical approaches.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Large Herbivore Ecology, Ecosystem Dynamics and Conservation , pp. 71 - 96
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, R. & Sæther, B. E. (1992). Functional‐response during winter of a herbivore, the moose, in relation to age and size. Ecology, 73, 542–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Åström, M., Lundberg, P. & Danell, K. (1990). Partial prey consumption by browsers: trees as patches. Journal of Animal Ecology, 57, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnke, R. H. & Scoones, I. (1993). Rethinking range ecology: implications for rangeland management in Africa. In Range Ecology at Disequilibrium, ed. Behnke, R. H., Scoones, I. & Kerven, C.. London: Overseas Development Institute, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Belovsky, G. E. (1978). Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theoretical Population Biology, 14, 105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughley, G. (1976). Plant‐herbivore systems. In Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications, ed. May, R. M.. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 94–113.Google Scholar
Caughley, G. & Gunn, A. (1993). Dynamics of large herbivores in deserts: kangaroos and caribou. Oikos, 67, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S. & Owen‐Smith, N. (1986). Effects of plant spinescence on large mammalian herbivores. Oecologia, 68, 446–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clutton‐Brock, T. H., Illius, A. W., Wilson, K.et al. (1997). Stability and instability in ungulate populations: an empirical analysis. American Naturalist, 149, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J. (1983). Herbivory: The Dynamics of Animal‐Plant Interactions. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Doucet, C. M. & Fryxell, J. M. (1993). The effect of nutritional quality on forage preference by beavers. Oikos, 67, 201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. E. & Swift, D. M. (1988). Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: alternate paradigms and implications for development. Journal of Range Management, 41, 450–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnsworth, K. & Illius, A. W. (1998). Optimal diet choice for large herbivores: an extended contingency model. Functional Ecology, 12, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, D. (2001). An adjustment of the extended contingency model of Farnsworth and Illius (1998). Functional Ecology, 15, 138–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, D., Fryxell, J. M. & Pilote, R. (2002). The temporal scale of foraging decisions in bison. Ecology, 83, 970–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, D., Boyce, M. S., Merrill, E. H. & Fryxell, J. M. (2004). Foraging costs of vigilance in large mammalian herbivores. Oikos, 107, 172–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryxell, J. M. (1987). Food limitation and demography of a migratory antelope, the white‐eared kob. Oecologia, 72, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fryxell, J. M. (1991). Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. American Naturalist, 138, 478–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryxell, J. M., Greever, J. & Sinclair, A. R. E. (1988). Why are migratory ungulates so abundant?American Naturalist, 131, 781–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaillard, J. M., Delorme, D., Boutin, J. M.et al. (1993). Roe deer survival patterns: a comparative analysis of contrasting populations. Journal of Animal Ecology, 62, 778–91.Google Scholar
Gaillard, J. M., Liberg, O., Andersen, R., Hewison, A. J. M. & Cederlund, G. (1998). Population dynamics of roe deer. In The European Roe Deer: the Biology of Success, ed. Andersen, R., Duncan, P. & Linnell, J. D. C.. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 309–35.Google Scholar
Gaillard, J. M., Festa‐Bianchet, M. & Yoccoz, N. G. (1998). Population dynamics of large herbivores: variable recruitment with constant adult survival. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginnet, T. F., Dankosky, J. A., Deo, G. & Demment, M. W. (1999). Patch depression in grazers: the roles of biomass distribution and residual stems. Functional Ecology, 13, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J. E., Shipley, L. A., Hobbs, N. T., Spalinger, D. E. & Wunder, B. A. (1993). Funtional response of herbivores in food concentrated patches: test of a mechanistic model. Ecology, 74, 778–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E. & Slobodkin, L. B. (1960). Community structure, population control, and competition. American Naturalist, 44, 421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, N. T. & Swift, D. (1985). Estimates of habitat carrying capacity incorporating explicit nutritional constraints. Journal of Wildlife Management, 49, 814–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, N. T., Gross, J. E., Shipley, L. A., Spalinger, D. E. & Wunder, B. A. (2003). Herbivore functional response in heterogeneous environments: a contest among models. Ecology, 84, 666–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. & FitzGibbon, C. (1994). Costs of vigilance in foraging ungulates. Animal Behaviour, 47, 481–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. & Gordon, I. J. (1999a). Physiological ecology of mammalian herbivory. In Vth International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores, ed. Jung, H.‐J. G. & Fahey, G. C. Jr. Savoy, IL: American Society of Animal Science, pp. 71–96.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. & Gordon, I. J. (1999b). Scaling up from functional response to numerical response in vertebrate herbivores. In Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators, ed. Olff, H., Brown, V. K. & Drent, R. H.. Oxford: Blackwell Science, pp. 397–427.Google Scholar
Illius, A. W. & O'Connor, T. G. (1999). On the relevance of nonequilibrium concepts to semi‐arid grazing systems. Ecological Applications, 9, 798–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. & O'Connor, T. G. (2000). Resource heterogeneity and ungulate population dynamics. Oikos, 89, 283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W., Derry, J. F. & Gordon, I. J. (1998). Evaluation of strategies for tracking climatic variation in semi‐arid grazing systems. Special Issue on Drought, Agricultural Systems, 57, 381–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W., Duncan, P., Richard, C. & Mesochina, P. (2002). Mechanisms of functional response and resource exploitation in browsing roe deer. Journal of Animal Ecology, 71, 723–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarman, P. J. (1974). The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour, 48, 215–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laca, E., Distel, R. A., Griggs, T. C. & Demment, M. W. (1994). Effects of canopy structure on patch depression by grazers. Ecology, 75, 706–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, P. & Åström, M. (1990). Low nutritive quality as a defense against optimally foraging herbivores. American Naturalist, 135, 547–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, C. & Gwynne, D. (1974). The Soay sheep and their food supply. In Island Survivors, ed. Jewell, P. A., Milner, C. & Boyd, J. Morton. London: Athlone Press, pp. 160–94.Google Scholar
Moen, R., Cohen, Y. & Pastor, J. (1998). Linking moose population and plant growth models with a moose energetics model. Ecosystems, 1, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen‐Smith, N. (1990). Demography of a large herbivore, the greater kudu, Tragelaphus strepsiceros, in relation to rainfall. Journal of Animal Ecology, 59, 893–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen‐Smith, N. (2002a). A metaphysiological modelling approach to stability in herbivore‐vegetation systems. Ecological Modelling, 149, 153–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen‐Smith, N. (2002b). Adaptive Herbivore Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sæther, B.‐E. (1997). Environmental stochasticity and population dynamics of large herbivores: a search for mechanisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 143–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scoones, I. (1994). New directions in pastoral development in Africa. In Living with Uncertainty, ed. Scoones, I.. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Scoones, I. (1995). Exploiting heterogeneity: habitat use by cattle in dryland Zimbabwe. Journal of Arid Environments, 29, 221–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, A. R. E. (1975). The resource limitation of trophic levels in tropical grassland ecosystems. Journal of Animal Ecology, 44, 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalinger, D. E. & Hobbs, N. T. (1992). Mechanisms of foraging in mammalian herbivores: new models of functional response. American Naturalist, 140, 325–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shipley, L. A. & Spalinger, D. E. (1995). Influence of size and density of browse patches on intake rates and foraging decisions of young moose and white‐tailed deer. Oecologia, 104, 112–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shipley, L. A., Gross, J. E., Spalinger, D. E., Hobbs, N. T. & Wunder, B. A. (1994). Scaling of functional response in mammalian herbivores. American Naturalist, 143, 1055–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, L. A., Illius, A. W., Danell, K., Hobbs, N. T. & Spalinger, D. E. (1999). Predicting bite size selection of mammalian herbivores: a test of a general model of diet optimization. Oikos, 84, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, D. W. & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C. & Gradwell, G. R. (1960). Key factors in population studies. Journal of Animal Ecology, 29, 399–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivås, H. J. & Sæther, B. E. (1987). Interactions between a generalist herbivore, the moose Alces alces, and its food resources: an experimental study of winter foraging behaviour in relation to browse availability. Journal of Animal Ecology, 56, 509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivås, H. J., Sæther, B. E. & Andersen, R. (1991). Optimal twig‐size selection of a generalist herbivore, the moose Alces alces: implications for plant‐herbivore interactions. Journal of Animal Ecology, 60, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, P. J., Hobbs, N. T., Ellis, J. E. & Coughenour, M. B. (2002). An ecosystem approach to population management of ungulates. Journal of Environmental Management, 65, 181–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westoby, M. (1978). What are the biological bases of varied diets?American Naturalist, 112, 627–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmshurst, J. E., Fryxell, J. M. & Colucci, P. E. (1999). What constrains daily intake in Thomson's gazelles?Ecology, 80, 2338–47.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×