Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 201–205

The influence of reproductive status on foraging by hoary marmots (Marmota caligata)

  • David P. Barash
Article

Summary

Predictions were made and tested, comparing the foraging behavior of reproductive (rf) and nonreproductive (nrf) female hoary marmots, with the following findings: In June, no differences occur between rf's and nrf's, regarding daytime foraging. However, rf's forage more in the evening and during inclement weather, suggesting that greater nutritional needs and higher reproductive value select for the assumption of more risk while foraging. These differences disappear by August, when nutritional needs and reproductive values of rf's and nrf's are comparable. Finally, rf's reduce their near-burrow foraging relative to nrf's, which minimizes competition with their own young.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen DC, Armitage KB, Hoffmann RS (1976) Socio-ecology of marmots: female reproductive strategies. Ecology 57:522–560Google Scholar
  2. Barash DP (1973) The social biology of the Olympic marmot. Anim Behav Monogr 6:171–249Google Scholar
  3. Barash DP (1974) Social behavior of the hoary marmot (Marmota caligata). Anim Behav 22:257–262Google Scholar
  4. Barash DP (1976a) Behavioral individuality and social behavior in free-living Alpine marmots (Marmota marmota). Anim Behav 24:27–35Google Scholar
  5. Barash DP (1976b) Pre-hibernation behavior of the hoary marmot (Marmota caligata). J Mammal 57:182–185Google Scholar
  6. Barash DP (1980) Predictive sociobiology. In: Barlow G, Silverbert J (eds) Sociobiology: beyond nature/nurture? AAAS Spec Publ 35. Westview Press, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirshfield M, Tinkle DW (1975) Natural selection and the evolution of reproductive effort. Proc Natl Acad Sci 72:2227–2231Google Scholar
  9. Holmes WG (1979) Social behavior and foraging strategies of hoary marmots (Marmota caligata) in Alaska. PhD dissertation, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Howell AH (1915) Revision of the American marmots. North Am Fauna 37:1–80Google Scholar
  11. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and texts. Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
  12. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404Google Scholar
  13. Stearns SC (1976) Life-history tactics: a review of the ideas. Q Rev Biol 51:3–47Google Scholar
  14. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Westoby M (1974) An analysis of diet selection by large generalist herbivores. Am Nat 108:290–304Google Scholar
  16. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new syntheis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Woods AW (1973) Habitat selection and energetics of the Olympic marmot. MS thesis, Western Washington State CollegeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • David P. Barash
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and ZoologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations