# Can Central Place Foraging Theory Predict Material Collection Behaviours of the Eurasian Beaver (Castor fiber)?

## TL;DR

This paper explores how Eurasian beavers collect materials, using central place foraging theory to understand their behavior in different environments.

## Contribution

The study provides evidence that beaver material collection behaviors vary depending on site-specific factors like resource availability and occupation history.

## Key findings

- Beavers were selective in the size and species of trees they felled.
- Beaver felling patterns differed between sites, showing spatial clustering or randomness.
- Variation in foraging strategies may reflect differences in site-specific conditions and occupation history.

## Abstract

Central place foragers (CPF) are animals that return collected resources to their central place. During foraging trips, individuals may exhibit different strategies and either prioritize energy maximizing (EM) during foraging bouts or minimize the time (Time minimising, TM) they spend away from their central place. The exhibited strategy may depend on the composition and distribution of the desired resources and costs of local threats. Beavers exhibit CPF, collecting timber for food and for use in constructions. We assessed trees felled by beavers and control, unfelled trees at two rivers in England and Norway that differed in resource availability and distribution and history of beaver occupation. We evaluated evidence to support or refute EM and TM strategies. We found that beavers were selective in the size and species of trees that they felled. However, the beavers differed between sites in whether their felling was spatially clustered or more randomly distributed. These results suggest site‐dependent variation in the predictive value of the EM and TM strategies of CPF for beaver material collection behaviors. These differences between the two sites may reflect different optimal foraging strategies driven by different lengths of occupation by beavers in the vicinity.

We assessed trees gnawed by beavers and control, ungnawed trees at two rivers in England and Norway that differed in resource availability and distribution, predator threat, and history of beaver occupation. Our results provide evidence for site‐dependent variation in the predictive value of the Energy Maximising and Time Minimising strategies of Central Place Foraging for beaver material collection behaviours.