Search

All animals exhibit some combination of spatial and social behaviours. A diversity of interactions occurs between such behaviours, producing emergent phenomena at the spatial–social interface. Untangling and interrogating these complex, intertwined processes can be vital for identifying the mechanisms, causes and consequences of behavioural variation in animal ecology. Nevertheless, the integrated study of the interactions between spatial and social phenotypes and environments (at the spatial–social interface) is in its relative infancy. In this theme issue, we present a collection of papers chosen to expand the spatial–social interface along several theoretical, methodological and empirical dimensions. They detail new perspectives, methods, study systems and more, as well as offering roadmaps for applied outputs and detailing exciting new directions for the field to move in the future. In this Introduction, we outline the contents of these papers, placing them in the context of what comes before, and we synthesize a number of takeaways and future directions for the spatial–social interface. This article is part of the theme issue 'The spatial–social interface: a theoretical and empirical integration'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The spatial availability of social resources is speculated to structure animal movement decisions, but the effects of social resources on animal movements are difficult to identify because social resources are rarely measured. Here, we assessed whether varying availability of a key social resource—access to receptive mates—produces predictable changes in movement decisions among bighorn sheep in Nevada, the United States. We compared the probability that males made long-distance 'foray' movements, a critical driver of connectivity, across three ecoregions with varying temporal duration of a socially mediated factor, breeding season. We used a hidden Markov model to identify foray events and then quantified the effects of social covariates on the probability of foray using a discrete choice model. We found that males engaged in forays at higher rates when the breeding season was short, suggesting that males were most responsive to the social resource when its existence was short lived. During the breeding season, males altered their response to social covariates, relative to the non-breeding season, though patterns varied, and age was associated with increased foray probability. Our results suggest that animals respond to the temporal availability of social resources when making the long-distance movements that drive connectivity. This article is part of the theme issue 'The spatial–social interface: a theoretical and empirical integration'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human disturbance is contributing to widespread, global changes in the distributions and densities of wild animals. These anthropogenic impacts on wildlife arise from multiple bottom-up and top-down pathways, including habitat loss, resource provisioning, climate change, pollution, infrastructure development, hunting and our direct presence. Animal behaviour is an important mechanism linking these disturbances to population outcomes, although these behavioural pathways are often complex and can remain obscured when different aspects of behaviour are studied in isolation from one another. The spatial–social interface provides a lens for understanding how an animal's spatial and social environments interact to determine its spatial and social phenotype (i.e. measurable characteristics of an individual), and how these phenotypes interact and feed back to reshape environments. Here, we review studies of animal behaviour at the spatial–social interface to understand and predict how human disturbance affects animal movement, distribution and intraspecific interactions, with consequences for the conservation of populations and ecosystems. By understanding the spatial–social mechanisms linking human disturbance to conservation outcomes, we can better design management interventions to mitigate undesired consequences of disturbance. This article is part of the theme issue 'The spatial–social interface: a theoretical and empirical integration'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non‐native species can affect ecosystems by influencing native predator‐prey dynamics. Therefore, management interventions designed to remove non‐natives may inadvertently lead to increased predation on native species. Feral horses are widely distributed throughout the arid parts of western North America. A growing body of research indicates that horses can be an important prey species to mountain lions in ecosystems where they overlap. In December 2020, the Bureau of Land Management removed 455 horses from the Delamar Mountains, Nevada, USA. We leveraged this management intervention to implement a before–after–control–impact study to test hypotheses about predation on horses and native ungulates. We predicted (1) that horses would comprise an important part of the diet in this mixed‐prey community, (2) following removal, the proportion of horses in the diet would decrease and native ungulates would increase, and (3) mountain lion home ranges overlapping the treatment areas would increase in response to decreased prey availability. From 2018 to 2022, we investigated 1360 clusters from 29 GPS‐collared lions and identified 1056 prey items. To model the probability of a predation event (a kill), we fit a mixed‐effects logistic regression model for ungulate prey as a function of lion sex, treatment area (in/out), and treatment period (pre‐/post‐removal). We used a log‐linear regression model to evaluate changes in home range size. The most common prey were mule deer (55%), feral horses (32%), and coyotes (4%). Twenty‐two of 29 lions consumed horses, although the rate of horse consumption was highly variable across individuals. Horses of both sexes and all age classes were predated. In contrast to predictions, our models detected no effect of removals on diet composition (βinteraction = 0.30 ± 1.1), nor did the removal influence home range size (βinteraction = 0.02 ± 0.02). Despite a 46% reduction in horse abundance, we found no evidence for prey‐switching following the horse removal treatment. Removal magnitude, rapid horse immigration, and/or behavioral specialization of individual mountain lions may help explain these results. Our findings have important implications for mountain lion and feral horse management in arid environments characterized by high prey diversity, but low prey abundance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]