Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of how results support predictions (Table 1) for expected patterns in time allocation, state occupancy probabilities and activity scheduling if muskoxen were to follow either of the three proposed strategies according to optimal foraging theory, for the summer and winter season, respectively

From: An application of upscaled optimal foraging theory using hidden Markov modelling: year-round behavioural variation in a large arctic herbivore

summer season (snow-free) winter season (snow-covered)
prediction supported reasons for support or rejection prediction supported reasons for support or rejection
S1INTAKE partially - time allocation strongly (but not only) influenced by foraging conditions (landcover, ruggedness)
- short resting bout duration
W1INTAKE partially - time allocation influenced by forage conditions (landcover, ruggedness)
- long resting bout duration
S2INTAKE yes - no covariates selected that represent potentially constraining environmental conditions (e.g. temperature) W2INTAKE no - time allocation not independent of potentially constraining environmental conditions (snow, temperature, wind speed)
S3 INTAKE yes - no specific daily scheduling of activities W3INTAKE no - distinct daily scheduling of activities
S4INTAKE yes - year not selected as covariate W4INTAKE partially - year selected as covariate
- no pronounced interannual variation in activity budgets
S1TIME partially - light and foraging conditions (landcover, ruggedness) strongly influence time allocation
- time of day not selected as covariate
W1TIME partially - time allocation influenced by time of day, forage (landcover, ruggedness) and light conditions
S2TIME no - time spent foraging is constantly high throughout summer W2TIME no - foraging activity decreased over course of the winter (i.e. with declining forage quality, see Schmidt et al. 2018)
S3TIME no - no specific daily scheduling of activities during midnight sun period W3TIME yes - distinct daily scheduling of activities
S1NET no - no covariates selected that represent potentially constraining environmental conditions (e.g. temperature) W1NET yes - time allocation influenced by forage (landcover, ruggedness) and potentially constraining environmental conditions (snow, temperature, wind speed)
S2NET no - no covariates selected that represent potentially constraining environmental conditions (e.g. temperature) W2NET yes - probability of resting increased with deep snow, low temperature, high wind speeds
- long resting bout duration
S3NET no - time of day not selected as covariate W3NET no - distinct daily scheduling of activities
S4NET no - year not selected as covariate W4NET partially - year selected as covariate
- no pronounced interannual variation in activity budgets