Track and dive-based movement metrics do not predict the number of prey encountered by a marine predator.

Accelerometry Area-restricted search Diving behavior Foraging behavior Marine predator Prey encounter events

Journal

Movement ecology
ISSN: 2051-3933
Titre abrégé: Mov Ecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101635009

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Jan 2023
Historique:
received: 18 03 2022
accepted: 17 12 2022
entrez: 21 1 2023
pubmed: 22 1 2023
medline: 22 1 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Studying animal movement in the context of the optimal foraging theory has led to the development of simple movement metrics for inferring feeding activity. Yet, the predictive capacity of these metrics in natural environments has been given little attention, raising serious questions of the validity of these metrics. The aim of this study is to test whether simple continuous movement metrics predict feeding intensity in a marine predator, the southern elephant seal (SES; Mirounga leonine), and investigate potential factors influencing the predictive capacity of these metrics. We equipped 21 female SES from the Kerguelen Archipelago with loggers and recorded their movements during post-breeding foraging trips at sea. From accelerometry, we estimated the number of prey encounter events (nPEE) and used it as a reference for feeding intensity. We also extracted several track- and dive-based movement metrics and evaluated how well they explain and predict the variance in nPEE. We conducted our analysis at two temporal scales (dive and day), with two dive profile resolutions (high at 1 Hz and low with five dive segments), and two types of models (linear models and regression trees). We found that none of the movement metrics predict nPEE with satisfactory power. The vertical transit rates (primarily the ascent rate) during dives had the best predictive performance among all metrics. Dive metrics performed better than track metrics and all metrics performed on average better at the scale of days than the scale of dives. However, the performance of the models at the scale of days showed higher variability among individuals suggesting distinct foraging tactics. Dive-based metrics performed better when computed from high-resolution dive profiles than low-resolution dive profiles. Finally, regression trees produced more accurate predictions than linear models. Our study reveals that simple movement metrics do not predict feeding activity in free-ranging marine predators. This could emerge from differences between individuals, temporal scales, and the data resolution used, among many other factors. We conclude that these simple metrics should be avoided or carefully tested a priori with the studied species and the ecological context to account for significant influencing factors.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Studying animal movement in the context of the optimal foraging theory has led to the development of simple movement metrics for inferring feeding activity. Yet, the predictive capacity of these metrics in natural environments has been given little attention, raising serious questions of the validity of these metrics. The aim of this study is to test whether simple continuous movement metrics predict feeding intensity in a marine predator, the southern elephant seal (SES; Mirounga leonine), and investigate potential factors influencing the predictive capacity of these metrics.
METHODS METHODS
We equipped 21 female SES from the Kerguelen Archipelago with loggers and recorded their movements during post-breeding foraging trips at sea. From accelerometry, we estimated the number of prey encounter events (nPEE) and used it as a reference for feeding intensity. We also extracted several track- and dive-based movement metrics and evaluated how well they explain and predict the variance in nPEE. We conducted our analysis at two temporal scales (dive and day), with two dive profile resolutions (high at 1 Hz and low with five dive segments), and two types of models (linear models and regression trees).
RESULTS RESULTS
We found that none of the movement metrics predict nPEE with satisfactory power. The vertical transit rates (primarily the ascent rate) during dives had the best predictive performance among all metrics. Dive metrics performed better than track metrics and all metrics performed on average better at the scale of days than the scale of dives. However, the performance of the models at the scale of days showed higher variability among individuals suggesting distinct foraging tactics. Dive-based metrics performed better when computed from high-resolution dive profiles than low-resolution dive profiles. Finally, regression trees produced more accurate predictions than linear models.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our study reveals that simple movement metrics do not predict feeding activity in free-ranging marine predators. This could emerge from differences between individuals, temporal scales, and the data resolution used, among many other factors. We conclude that these simple metrics should be avoided or carefully tested a priori with the studied species and the ecological context to account for significant influencing factors.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36681811
doi: 10.1186/s40462-022-00361-2
pii: 10.1186/s40462-022-00361-2
pmc: PMC9862577
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

3

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

J Anim Ecol. 2013 Jan;82(1):72-83
pubmed: 22881702
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 May 21;116(21):10339-10347
pubmed: 31061117
Ecol Evol. 2022 Jan 26;12(1):e8457
pubmed: 35127010
Methods Ecol Evol. 2018 Jan;9(1):64-77
pubmed: 29456829
J Exp Biol. 2010 Nov 15;213(Pt 22):3874-80
pubmed: 21037067
Ecology. 2015 Feb;96(2):417-27
pubmed: 26240863
Ecol Evol. 2021 Jan 29;11(4):1620-1633
pubmed: 33613994
Biol Open. 2016 Feb 12;5(3):262-71
pubmed: 26873950
Vet Rec. 2000 Feb 26;146(9):251-4
pubmed: 10737295
J Anim Ecol. 2008 Jul;77(4):802-13
pubmed: 18397250
J Exp Biol. 2011 Sep 1;214(Pt 17):2973-87
pubmed: 21832140
J Exp Biol. 1992 Apr;165:181-94
pubmed: 1588250
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Jan 29;281(1779):20132376
pubmed: 24478293
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 14;11(12):e0167226
pubmed: 27973587
J Exp Biol. 2014 Dec 15;217(Pt 24):4295-302
pubmed: 25394635
J Exp Biol. 1998 Aug;201(Pt 16):2349-58
pubmed: 9679097
J Exp Biol. 2004 Nov;207(Pt 23):4057-65
pubmed: 15498951
J Anim Ecol. 2013 Jan;82(1):39-54
pubmed: 23171297
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 23;8(12):e83248
pubmed: 24376671
J Anim Ecol. 2015 Mar;84(2):554-64
pubmed: 25283546
J Comp Physiol B. 2017 Jan;187(1):29-50
pubmed: 27686668
J Exp Biol. 2012 Oct 15;215(Pt 20):3622-30
pubmed: 23014571
Ecology. 2008 Dec;89(12):3336-48
pubmed: 19137941
Am Nat. 2007 Nov;170(5):734-43
pubmed: 17926295
Ecology. 2010 Jul;91(7):2044-55
pubmed: 20715627
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Jun 22;270(1521):1283-92
pubmed: 12816642
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016 May;91(2):534-67
pubmed: 25865135
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 May;82(2):291-318
pubmed: 17437562
Proc Biol Sci. 2020 Aug 26;287(1933):20201544
pubmed: 32811318
Ecology. 2019 Jan;100(1):e02566
pubmed: 30467837
Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 3;9(1):5588
pubmed: 30944405
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Dec 7;270(1532):2451-5
pubmed: 14667334
Ecol Evol. 2016 Dec 20;7(2):606-618
pubmed: 28116057
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 Nov 29;362(1487):2169-81
pubmed: 17472917
Nat Commun. 2015 Oct 27;6:8220
pubmed: 26506134
J Exp Biol. 2014 Jul 15;217(Pt 14):2609-19
pubmed: 24803471
Am Nat. 2003 Jan;161(1):1-28
pubmed: 12650459
J Anim Ecol. 2008 Sep;77(5):948-57
pubmed: 18513336
Physiol Biochem Zool. 2000 Nov-Dec;73(6):790-8
pubmed: 11121352
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 06;9(3):e88503
pubmed: 24603534
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 12;9(1):19013
pubmed: 31831763
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Feb;25(2):81-9
pubmed: 19748700
Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 15;5:18063
pubmed: 26666350
J Exp Biol. 2011 Nov 15;214(Pt 22):3760-7
pubmed: 22031740
Ecology. 2010 Aug;91(8):2373-84
pubmed: 20836459
Ecology. 2006 Dec;87(12):3095-108
pubmed: 17249234
Annu Rev Physiol. 1998;60:19-32
pubmed: 9558452
J Exp Biol. 2020 May 19;223(Pt 10):
pubmed: 32430464
J Exp Biol. 2007 Sep;210(Pt 18):3285-94
pubmed: 17766306
J Anim Ecol. 2010 Nov;79(6):1146-56
pubmed: 20673236
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 12;9(6):e99329
pubmed: 24922323
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36401
pubmed: 22615767
Ecology. 2009 Dec;90(12):3536-45
pubmed: 20120820
Mov Ecol. 2016 Oct 26;4:25
pubmed: 27800161
J Exp Biol. 2001 Feb;204(Pt 4):777-84
pubmed: 11171360
Mov Ecol. 2021 Aug 26;9(1):43
pubmed: 34446104
J Anim Ecol. 2008 Nov;77(6):1223-33
pubmed: 18657207
J Anim Ecol. 2009 May;78(3):513-23
pubmed: 19040681
Conserv Physiol. 2016 Apr 07;4(1):cow005
pubmed: 27293757
Integr Comp Biol. 2002 Feb;42(1):3-10
pubmed: 21708689
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Dec 22;281(1797):
pubmed: 25377461
Psychol Methods. 2019 Jun;24(3):309-338
pubmed: 29999378
Oecologia. 2012 Jun;169(2):395-406
pubmed: 22139429
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 24;10(6):e0128789
pubmed: 26107647
Mov Ecol. 2015 May 27;3(1):15
pubmed: 26019871
Am Nat. 1992 Nov;140(5):829-53
pubmed: 19426045
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 May 22;273(1591):1195-201
pubmed: 16720391
Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Feb;28(2):119-25
pubmed: 22995894
Mov Ecol. 2020 Jul 17;8:31
pubmed: 32695402

Auteurs

Hassen Allegue (H)

Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada. h.all@disroot.org.

Denis Réale (D)

Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Baptiste Picard (B)

Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, UMR7372 CNRS-La Rochelle Université, Villiers en Bois, France.

Christophe Guinet (C)

Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, UMR7372 CNRS-La Rochelle Université, Villiers en Bois, France.

Classifications MeSH