The effects of animal personality on the ideal free distribution.
Panopeus herbstii
agent-based modelling
behavioural types
habitat fragmentation
patch quality
spatial distribution
Journal
Proceedings. Biological sciences
ISSN: 1471-2954
Titre abrégé: Proc Biol Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245157
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 09 2020
09 09 2020
Historique:
entrez:
3
9
2020
pubmed:
3
9
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The ideal free distribution (IFD) has been used to predict the distribution of foraging animals in a wide variety of systems. However, its predictions do not always match observed distributions of foraging animals. Instead, we often observe that there are more consumers than predicted in low-quality patches and fewer consumers than predicted in high-quality patches (i.e. undermatching). We examine the possibility that animal personality is one explanation for this undermatching. We first conducted a literature search to determine how commonly studies document the personality distribution of populations. Second, we created a simple individual-based model to conceptually demonstrate why knowing the distribution of personalities is important for studies of populations of foragers in context of the IFD. Third, we present a specific example where we calculate the added time to reach the IFD for a population of mud crabs that has a considerable number of individuals with relatively inactive personalities. We suggest that animal personality, particularly the prevalence of inactive personality types, may inhibit the ability of a population to track changes in habitat quality, therefore leading to undermatching of the IFD. This may weaken the IFD as a predictive model moving forward.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32873202
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1095
pmc: PMC7542775
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5095311']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20201095Références
J Theor Biol. 2009 Jan 21;256(2):187-200
pubmed: 18952108
J Anim Ecol. 2009 Sep;78(5):919-27
pubmed: 19486205
Ecol Lett. 2013 Nov;16(11):1365-72
pubmed: 24047530
Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Aug;15(8):337-341
pubmed: 10884706
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 22;279(1731):1194-202
pubmed: 21957132
J Anim Ecol. 2020 Jan;89(1):68-79
pubmed: 31541578
Ecol Evol. 2018 Jan 31;8(5):2471-2481
pubmed: 29531668
Trends Ecol Evol. 1988 Dec;3(12):325-30
pubmed: 21227284
Am Nat. 2006 Sep;168(3):384-97
pubmed: 16947113
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Oct 11;284(1864):
pubmed: 28978725
Psychol Methods. 2006 Mar;11(1):54-71
pubmed: 16594767
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jan 7;111(1):302-7
pubmed: 24367109
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Apr 7;277(1684):1093-9
pubmed: 19955156
Oecologia. 2017 Jun;184(2):431-440
pubmed: 28528392
Theor Popul Biol. 2008 May;73(3):403-25
pubmed: 18282592
J Biol Dyn. 2007 Jul;1(3):249-71
pubmed: 22876794
Am Nat. 2004 Oct;164(4):473-89
pubmed: 15459879
Psychol Bull. 2001 Jan;127(1):45-86
pubmed: 11271756
Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 Aug;27(8):452-61
pubmed: 22727728
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Apr 27;283(1829):
pubmed: 27097926
Ecol Lett. 2019 Sep;22(9):1387-1395
pubmed: 31207017
Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 Jul;19(7):372-8
pubmed: 16701288
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1999 Nov;23(7):925-35
pubmed: 10580307
Trends Ecol Evol. 1994 Nov;9(11):442-6
pubmed: 21236920
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 7;274(1608):383-90
pubmed: 17164202
Oecologia. 2016 Sep;182(1):55-69
pubmed: 27170290
Ecol Evol. 2018 Jun 22;8(14):7216-7227
pubmed: 30073080
J Anim Ecol. 2014 Nov;83(6):1469-77
pubmed: 24749626
Ecol Evol. 2015 Apr;5(7):1474-83
pubmed: 25897386
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Dec 27;365(1560):4065-76
pubmed: 21078658
Oecologia. 2017 Sep;185(1):55-67
pubmed: 28779225