On the spatial clustering of behavioural phenotypes: matching movement tactics with landscape structure in a large herbivore

Résumé fourni par la source

In the wild, individuals consistently differ in movement and space use behaviours, depending on their personality. This variation can lead to personality–habitat associations and spatial structuring, potentially generating individual niche segregation. We explored the link between personality and landscape composition and structure in a population of free‐ranging roe deer Capreolus capreolus , predicting that 1) individuals with similar movement tactics would occupy similar ecological niches, which should result in 2) the spatial clustering of personalities in heterogeneous landscapes with personality‐alike individuals being closer to each other in space than by chance. Using GPS and activity data from 263 roe deer, we calculated five movement‐based personality traits. We evaluated the association between movement phenotypes and habitat by comparing the among‐individual similarity in movement behaviour to their similarity in home range composition and structure. Additionally, we conducted spatially‐explicit analyses to quantify the spatial clustering of these traits. Our results reveal that individuals with similar daytime use of open habitats, an indicator of boldness, occupy the same ecological niche with respect to woodland availability and habitat homogeneity, leading to strong spatial clustering in this trait. In contrast, home range size, average movement speed and road diurnality (i.e. an individual's propensity to get closer to a road during daytime), were spatially structured only at a small‐scale. Additionally, we found no spatial structure in activity level, and neither activity nor road diurnality were associated with landscape composition and structure. Matching movement‐based personality traits with landscape features revealed spatial clustering of personalities. This non‐random distribution could have implications for managing wild ungulate populations, segregating ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient fluxes) and disservices (e.g. road collisions) across the landscape.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.