Download SYNTHESIS APPROACH FOUR EXAMPLES

SYNTHESIS APPROACH
FOUR EXAMPLES
CARMA 6
1-2 pm 4th December 2009
CHAIR: Bob White
HABITAT LINKAGES TO THE
INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION
• Scale of documented actions (both spatial & temporal)
and consequences must be explicitly identified
• This allows assessment of potential cross-scale [and
cross-class] cumulative effects of foraging, predation,
and pathogen exposure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1-Plant parts within plant species
NUTRIENT INTAKE
2-Plant species within habitat patches
3-Habitat patch within concentrated use areas
4-Concentrated use areas within seasonal range
NUTRIENT INTAKE
5-Seasonal range within annual range
PREDATION RISK
6-Annual range within herd range
PATHOGEN
7-Herd ranges within species
EXPOSURE
8-[Sub] Species distributions on earth
SCALING UP FROM THE
INDIVIDUAL
In order to interpret observed population distribution and response, and to predict
responses in relation to assumed climate and anthropogenic effects, a number of
concepts that have relevance for Rangifer linking the individual to the population
need evaluation:
• Optimum foraging: theory used to link diet and habitat use to meeting energy and
nutrient requirements
• Selfish cow: a theory that accounts for the distribution of maternal investment of
energy and protein that has relevance for offspring growth and survival and the
occurrence of breeding pauses
•
•
•
Plasticity and constraint: examines the ability of individuals and populations to
respond (be plastic) to environmental variability within evolved behavioral,
physiological or genetic constraints. An inability to respond has been coined as a
“trophic mismatch”
Capital versus Income breeders: the evolved strategy of allocating energy and
protein to embryos from females body reserves (capital) or diet (income) which
conveys selective advantage; in Rangifer the application would be (is?) exemplified at
the subspecies level.
Pathogens and body condition: the chicken and egg: identification of conditions
under which pathogens insert a preemptive versus compensatory response of
individuals and components of the population vital rates (mortality, pregnancy)
USE OF MODELS AS WELL AS CARMA DATA SETS TO INVESTIGATE
APPLICABILITY AND/OR MECHANISM RELATIVE TO CONCEPTS
EXAMPLES AND PROCESS
• LINKAGES:
– POPULATIONS TO
FORAGE AND
WEATHER (Joly,
Stephens, White)
– INDIVIDUALS TO
POPULATIONS
(Barboza, White)
• LINKAGES &
EXTRAPOLATION:
– PATHOGENSBEYOND
INVENTORY (Kutz)
– GLOBAL CHANGE
(Kofinas)
Example 2: Linking individuals to
the population – some practical
examples
• Barboza• White- Decision tree for weaning and
conception
– Body composition
– Milk composition
HEAVIEST CALVES
OF THE COHORT IN
MARCH
“SELFISH
COW”
HEAVIEST CALVES
OF THE COHORT IN
MARCH
REINDEER CALF GROWTH RATE
White & Luick 1976
450
Calf Growth Rate (g/d)
400
N.S.
*
Willows
Birch
350
300
**
250
200
150
100
Control
Period1
Period 2
COW BODYWEIGHT GAIN: “SELFISH” COW?
White & Luick 1976
900
Cow Bodyweight Gain (g/d)
800
700
Willows
Birch
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
CONTROL
PERIOD 1
PERIOD 2
?
HEAVIEST CALVES
OF THE COHORT IN
MARCH
Conceptual
decision key
(fall cow)
Backfat
No
Kidney fat
No
Yes
Backfat thickness
Yes
Intestinal fat
No
Yes
Bone marrow
Red &
runny
1-3% body fat
Poor/animal dying
Pregnancy <30%
<1"
>1"
All other fat areas "yes“
Bone marrow "yellow"
Pink
3-6% body fat
Fair (recovering?)
Pregnancy 50 to 70%
CARMA MANUAL Fig. 12
6-12%% body fat
Good
Pregnancy 100%
12%% body fat
Excellent
Pregnancy 100%
HEAVIEST CALVES
MILK COMPOSITION
= PEAK
OF THE COHORT
IN
MARCH LACTATION
6
CARIBOU
NOV
Lactose (%WW)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
DM (%WW)
40
50
60
CARIBOU WITH CALF (PCH Gerhart et al)
MILK
TYPE I
TYPE II
TYPE III
TYPE IV
3-4wk 15-16wk approx20wk Weaning Status
June/July September November
90%
10%
98%
36% Extending lactation
48% Weaning
a
15% Recently weaned
HEAVIEST CALVES
OF THE COHORT
IN MARCH