Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 293–301 | Cite as

Predation risk and foraging behavior of the hoary marmot in Alaska

  • Warren G. Holmes
Article

Summary

I observed hoary marmots for three field seasons to determine how the distribution of food and the risk of predation influenced marmots' foraging behavior. I quantified the amount of time Marmota caligata foraged in different patches of alpine meadows and assessed the distribution and abundance of vegetation eaten by marmots in these meadows. Because marmots dig burrows and run to them when attacked by predators, marmot-toburrow distance provided an index of predation risk that could be specified for different meadow patches.

Patch use correlated positively with food abundance and negatively with predation risk. However, these significant relationships disappeared when partial correlations were calculated because food abundance and risk were intercorrelated. Using multiple regression, 77.0% of the variance in patch use was explained by a combination of food abundance, refuge burrow density, and a patch's distance from the talus where sleeping burrows were located. Variations in vigilance behavior (look-ups to search for predators while feeding) according to marmots' ages, the presence of other conspecifics, and animals' proximity to their sleeping burrows all indicated that predation risk influenced foraging.

In a forage-manipulation experiment, the use of forage-enhanced patches increased six-fold, verifying directly the role of food availability on patch used. Concomitant with increased feeding, however, was the intense construction of refuge burrows in experimental patches that presumably reduced the risk of feeding. Thus, I suggest that food and predation risk jointly influence patch use by hoary marmots and that both factors must be considered when modeling the foraging behavior of species that can be predator and prey simultaneously.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–265Google Scholar
  2. Andersen DC, Armitage KB, Hoffmann RS (1976) Socioecology of marmots: female reproductive strategies. Ecology 57:552–560Google Scholar
  3. Anthony M (1962) Activity and behavior of the woodchuck in southern Illinois. Occas Pap Adams Ctr Ecol Stud 6:1–25Google Scholar
  4. Armitage KB (1962) Social behaviour of a colony of the yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris). Anim Behav 10:319–331Google Scholar
  5. Armitage KB (1979) Food selectivity by yellow-bellied marmots. J Mammal 60:628–629Google Scholar
  6. Armitage KB (1982) Marmots and coyotes: behavior of prey and predator. J Mammal 63:503–505Google Scholar
  7. Armitage KB, Downhower JF (1974) Demography of yellow-bellied marmot populations. Ecology 55:1233–1245Google Scholar
  8. Armitage KB, Downhower JF, Svendsen GE (1976) Seasonal changes in weights of marmots. Am Midl Nat 96:36–51Google Scholar
  9. Barash DP (1973) The social biology of the Olympic marmot. Anim Behav Monogr 6:173–245Google Scholar
  10. Barash DP (1974) The social behavior of the hoary marmot (Marmota caligata). Anim Behav 22:256–261Google Scholar
  11. Barash DP (1975) Marmot alarm calling and the question of altruistic behavior. Am Midl Nat 94:468–470Google Scholar
  12. Barash DP (1980) The influence of reproductive status on foraging by hoary marmots (Marmota caligata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:201–205Google Scholar
  13. Belovsky GE (1978) Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theor Popul Biol 14:105–134Google Scholar
  14. Bjugstad AJ, Crawford HS, Neal DL (1970) Determining forage consumption by direct observation of domestic animals. In: Range and wildlife habitat eval. US Dept Agric Forest Serv Misc Publ No 1147. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Blalock HM (1972) Social statistics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Bliss LC, Courtin GM, Pattie DL, Riewe RR, Whitfield DWA, Widden P (1973) Arctic tundra ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:359–399Google Scholar
  17. Carey HV (1983) Foraging and nutritional ecology of yellow-bellied marmots in the White Mountains of California. PhD thesis. University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  18. Cerri RD, Fraser DF (1983) Predation and risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicting demands. Am Nat 121:552–561Google Scholar
  19. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: attach strategy of a mantid. Am Nat 110:141–151Google Scholar
  20. Covich A (1976) Analyzing shapes of foraging areas: some ecological and economic theories. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:235–257Google Scholar
  21. Goering HK, van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis. US Dept Agric Handbook No 379. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Goss-Custard JD (1977) Optimal foraging and the size selection of worms by redshank, Tringa totanus, in the field. Anim Behav 25:10–29Google Scholar
  23. Grizzell RA (1955) A study of the southern woodchuck, Marmota monax monax. Am Midl Nat 53:257–293Google Scholar
  24. Hansen RM (1975) Foods of the hoary marmot on Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Am Midl Nat 94:348–353Google Scholar
  25. Hansen RM, Flinders JT (1969) Food habits of North American hares. Colo State Univ Range Sci Dept Sci Ser 1Google Scholar
  26. Holechek JL, Vavra M, Pieper RD (1982) Botanical composition determination of range herbivore diets: a review. J Range Manage 35:309–315Google Scholar
  27. Holmes WG (1979) Social behavior and foraging strategies of hoary marmots (Marmota caligata) in Alaska. PhD thesis, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  28. Holmes WG (1984) The ecological basis of monogamy in Alaskan hoary marmots. In: Murie JO, Michener GR (eds) Biology of ground-dwelling squirrels: annual cycles, behavioral ecology, and sociality. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (in press)Google Scholar
  29. Hoogland JL (1979) The effect of colony size on individual alertness of prairie dogs (Sciuridae: Cynomys spp.). Anim Behav 27:394–407Google Scholar
  30. Hoogland JL (1981) The evolution of coloniality in white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dogs (Sciuridae: Cynomys leucurus and C. ludovicianus). Ecology 62:252–272Google Scholar
  31. Johns DW, Armitage KB (1979) Behavioral ecology of alpine yellow-bellied marmots. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:133–157Google Scholar
  32. Kamil AC, Sargent TD (1981) Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological, and psychological approaches. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Krebs JR (1978) Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, pp 23–63Google Scholar
  34. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  35. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Noyes DH, Holmes WG (1979) Behavioral responses of freeliving hoary marmots to a model golden eagle. J Mammal 60:408–411Google Scholar
  37. Olendorff RR (1976) The food habits of the golden eagle. Am Midl Nat 95:230–235Google Scholar
  38. Pyke GH (1981) Why hummingbirds hover and honeyeaters perch. Anim Behav 29:861–867Google Scholar
  39. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
  40. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404Google Scholar
  41. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands. Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  42. Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect, Notonecta hoffmanni. Ecology 63:786–796Google Scholar
  43. Svendsen GE (1974) Behavioral and environmental factors in the spatial distribution and population dynamics of a yellow-bellied marmot population. Ecology 55:760–771Google Scholar
  44. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis mochrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052Google Scholar
  45. Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittelbach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548Google Scholar
  46. Westoby M (1974) An analysis of diet selection by large generalist herbivores. Am Nat 108:290–304Google Scholar
  47. Willhite FM, Rouse HK, Miller DE (1955) High altitude meadows in Colorado III: the effect of nitrogen fertilization on crude protein production. Agron J 47:117–122Google Scholar
  48. Wood WA (1973) Habitat selection and energetics of the Olympic marmot. Ms thesis, Western Washington University, BellinghamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Warren G. Holmes
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology Department-Mason HallUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations