Geology topics

Benjamin L. Allen

Publications and source records attributed to Benjamin L. Allen.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Intrinsic and environmental drivers of pairwise cohesion in wild Canis social groups

Animals within social groups respond to costs and benefits of sociality by adjusting the proportion of time they spend in close proximity to other individuals in the group (cohesion). Variation in cohesion between individuals, in turn, shapes important group-level processes such as subgroup formation and fission–fusion dynamics. Although critical to animal sociality, a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing cohesion remains a gap in our knowledge of cooperative behavior in animals. We tracked 574 individuals from six species within the genus Canis in 15 countries on four continents with GPS telemetry to estimate the time that pairs of individuals within social groups spent in close proximity and test hypotheses regarding drivers of cohesion. Pairs of social canids ( Canis spp.) varied widely in the proportion of time they spent together (5%–100%) during seasonal monitoring periods relative to both intrinsic characteristics and environmental conditions. The majority of our data came from three species of wolves (gray wolves, eastern wolves, and red wolves) and coyotes. For these species, cohesion within social groups was greatest between breeding pairs and varied seasonally as the nature of cooperative activities changed relative to annual life history patterns. Across species, wolves were more cohesive than coyotes. For wolves, pairs were less cohesive in larger groups, and when suitable, small prey was present reflecting the constraints of food resources and intragroup competition on social associations. Pair cohesion in wolves declined with increased anthropogenic modification of the landscape and greater climatic variability, underscoring challenges for conserving social top predators in a changing world. We show that pairwise cohesion in social groups varies strongly both within and across Canis species, as individuals respond to changing ecological context defined by resources, competition, and anthropogenic disturbance. Our work highlights that cohesion is a highly plastic component of animal sociality that holds significant promise for elucidating ecological and evolutionary mechanisms underlying cooperative behavior.

Ecology↗

USGS2020

Quantifying the contribution of habitats and pathways to a spatially structured population facing environmental change

The consequences of environmental disturbance and management are difficult to quantify for spatially structured populations because changes in one location carry through to other areas as a result of species movement. We develop a metric, G , for measuring the contribution of a habitat or pathway to network-wide population growth rate in the face of environmental change. This metric is different from other contribution metrics, as it quantifies effects of modifying vital rates for habitats and pathways in perturbation experiments. Perturbation treatments may range from small degradation or enhancement to complete habitat or pathway removal. We demonstrate the metric using a simple metapopulation example and a case study of eastern monarch butterflies. For the monarch case study, the magnitude of environmental change influences the ordering of node contribution. We find that habitats within which all individuals reside during one season are the most important to short-term network growth under complete removal scenarios, whereas the central breeding region contributes most to population growth over all but the strongest disturbances. The metric G provides for more efficient management interventions that proactively mitigate impacts of expected disturbances to spatially structured populations. use changes in one location carry through to other areas due to species movement. We develop a metric, G, for measuring the contribution of a habitat or pathway to network-wide population growth rate in the face of environmental change. This metric is different than other contribution metrics as it quantifies effects of modifying vital rates for habitats and pathways in perturbation experiments. Perturbation treatments may range from small degradation or enhancement to complete habitat or pathway removal. We demonstrate the metric using a simple metapopulation example and a case study of eastern monarch butterflies. For the monarch case study, the magnitude of environmental change influences ordering of node contribution. We find that habitats through which all migrants flow are the most important to short-term network growth under complete-removal scenarios. The metric G provides for more efficient management interventions that proactively mitigate impacts of expected disturbances to spatially structured populations.

American Naturalist↗

USGS2019

Quantifying source and sink habitats and pathways in spatially structured populations: A generalized modelling approach

The ability to classify habitats and movement pathways as sources or sinks is an important part of the decision making process for the conservation of spatially structured populations. Diverse approaches have been used to quantify the importance of habitats and pathways in a spatial network, however these approaches have been limited by a lack of general applicability across life histories and movement strategies. In this paper we develop a generalized per-capita contribution metric, the C-metric, for quantifying habitat and pathway quality. This metric is novel in that it can be applied broadly to both metapopulations and migratory species. It allows for any number of age and sex classes, unlimited number of seasons or time intervals within the annual cycle, and for density-dependent parameters. We demonstrate the ﬂexibility of the metric with four case studies: a hypothetical metapopulation, elk of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, northern pintail ducks in North America, and the eastern population of the monarch butterﬂy. General computer code to calculate the per-capita contribution metric is provided. We demonstrate that the C-metric is useful for identifying source and sink habitats in a network and suggest that the C-metric could be supplemented by some measure of network structure for a more robust description of habitat or pathway importance.

Ecological Modelling↗

USGS2017

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves ( Canis lupus ) and dingoes ( Canis lupus dingo ) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science.

Food Webs↗

USGS2017

Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

We recently described the following six interrelated issues that justify questioning some of the discourse about the reliability of the literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores (Allen et al. In press): 1. The overall paucity of available data, 2. The reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, 3. The general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, 4. The lack of applied science studies, 5. The frequent use of logical fallacies, 6. The generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans.

Food Webs↗