Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 195–200 | Cite as

Position preferences within groups: do whirligigs select positions which balance feeding opportunities with predator avoidance?

  • William L. Romey
Article

Abstract

The benefits and costs of group living are likely to be asymmetric within a group. Animals at the edge of a group are more at risk from predators, according to the selfish herd hypothesis, but are also more likely to obtain scattered food resources. Does an animal's choice between these two conflicting positions depend on its body reserves? The hunger level of marked whirligig beetles (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae) was manipulated and the positions of individuals relative to the rest of the group on the surface of the water were determined with image analysis software. In 12 out of 13 groups, of approximately 18 beetles each, hungry beetles were closer to the edge of a group and had a higher distance to their nearest neighbor than well-fed beetles. Hungry beetles at the edge obtained nearly all of the food particles dropped onto the surface of the water. These results show that position preferences within groups may involve a dynamic feedback between foraging, predator avoidance, and shortterm hunger levels.

Key words

Grouping Predator avoidance Optimality trade-offs Dineutes Gyrinidae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bendele H (1986) Mechanosensory cues control chasing behaviour of whirligig beetles (Coleoptera, Gyrinidae). J Comp Phyisol A 158:405–411Google Scholar
  2. Benfield EF (1972) A defensive secretion of Dineutes discolor (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 65:1324–1327Google Scholar
  3. Brown JL, Orians GH (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:239–262Google Scholar
  4. Brönmark C, Malmqvist B, Otto C (1984) Anti-predator adaptations in a neustonic insect (Velia caprai). Oecologia 61:189–191Google Scholar
  5. Dill LM, Ydenberg RC (1987) The group size-flight distance relationship in water striders (Gerris remigis). Can J Zool 65:223–226Google Scholar
  6. Eggers DM (1976) The theoretical effects of schooling by planktivorous fish predators on rate of prey consumption. J Fish Res Board Can 33:1964–1971Google Scholar
  7. Foster WA, Treherne JE (1981) Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature 295:466–467Google Scholar
  8. Freilich JF (1986) Contact behavior of the whirligig beetle Dineutes assimilis (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). Entomol News 97:215–221Google Scholar
  9. Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard: test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68:1856–1862Google Scholar
  10. Godin J-GJ (1986) Risk of predation and foraging behaviour in shoaling banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus). Can J Zool 64:1675–1678Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311Google Scholar
  12. Healey MC, Prieston R (1973) The interrelationships among individuals in a fish school. Fish Res Board Canada Tech Rep 389Google Scholar
  13. Heinrich B, Vogt D (1980) Aggregation and foraging behavior for whirligig beetles (Gyrinidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:179–186Google Scholar
  14. Jennings T, Evans SM (1980) Influence of position in the flock and flock size on vigilance in the starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Anim Behav 28:634–645Google Scholar
  15. Keys GC, Dugatkin LA (1990) Flock size and position effects on vigilance, aggression, and prey capture in the European starling. Condor 92:151–159Google Scholar
  16. Krause J (1993) The relationship between foraging and shoal position in a mixed shoal of roach (Rutilus rutilus) and chub (Leuciscus cephalus): a field study. Oecologia 93:356–359Google Scholar
  17. Krause J (1994) Differential fitness returns in relation to spatial position in groups. Biol Rev 69:187–206Google Scholar
  18. Krause J, Bumann D, Todt D (1992) Relationship between the position preference and nutritional state of individuals in schools of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:177–180Google Scholar
  19. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. McFarland WN, Moss SA (1967) Internal behavior in fish schools. Science 156:260–262Google Scholar
  21. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1990a) State-dependent ideal free distributions. Evol Ecol 4:298–311Google Scholar
  22. McNamara JM, Houston Al (1990b) The value of fat reserves and the tradeoff between starvation and predation. Acta Biotheor 38:37–61Google Scholar
  23. Merritt RW (1978) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IowaGoogle Scholar
  24. Milinski M (1977) Do all members of a swarm suffer the same predation? Z Tierpsychol 45:373–388Google Scholar
  25. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  26. Milinski M, Parker GA (1991) Competition for resources. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach, 3rd edition. Blackwell, Boston, pp 137–168Google Scholar
  27. Nuernberger BD (1991) Population structure of Dineutes assimilis in a patchy environment: dispersal, gene flow, and persistence. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Parish JK (1989) Re-examining the selfish herd: are central fish safer? Anim Behav 38:1048–1053Google Scholar
  29. Petit DR, Bildstein KL (1987) Effect of group size and location within the group on the foraging behavior of white ibises. Condor 89:602–609Google Scholar
  30. Pitcher TJ, Parish JK (1993) Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 363–440Google Scholar
  31. Pitcher TJ, Wyche CJ, Magurran AE (1982) Evidence for position preferences in schooling mackerel. Anim Behav 30: 932–934Google Scholar
  32. Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach. Sinauer, Sunderland pp 122–147Google Scholar
  33. Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1990) Trade-offs in foraging success and predation risk with spatial position in colonial spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:77–85Google Scholar
  34. Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1993) Ontogenetic shifts within the selfish herd: predation risk and foraging trade-offs change with age in colonial web-building spiders. Oecologia 95:1–8Google Scholar
  35. Romey WL (1993) Grouping in whirligig beetles. PhD Thesis, State University of New York, BinghamtonGoogle Scholar
  36. Romey WL (1995) Why are some animals more likely to be on the outside of a school? testing evolutionary predictions. In: Parish JK, Hamner WM, Prewitt CT (eds) Three dimensional animal aggregations. Cambridge University Press NY (in press)Google Scholar
  37. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1042Google Scholar
  38. Theodorakis CW (1989) Size segregation and the effects of oddity on predation risk in minnow schools. Anim Behav 38: 496–502Google Scholar
  39. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Vulinec K, Miller MC (1989) Aggregation and predator avoidance in whirligig beetles (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). J NY Entomol Soc 97:438–447Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • William L. Romey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyKenyon CollegeGombierUSA

Personalised recommendations