Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 109–115

Optimal foraging: The influence of intraspecific competition on diet selection

  • Manfred Milinski
Article

Summary

Three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) showed a relative preference for a familiar prey size when hunting for two sizes of Daphnia magna in high density. This result is not compatible with the ‘apparent size’ hypothesis. Ten groups were investigated, each consisting of two stickle-backs tested under three consecutive experimental conditions, to establish whether the function of the preference for a familiar prey size could be avoidance of competition.

First, the relative competitive ability of each fish was determined by the proportion it consumed of three series of 60 medium-sized daphnia, offered pairwise. Second, during the consumption of five series of 30 pairs, each consisting of a large and a small daphnia, it was determined how many items each fish caught of each prey size. As handling times were equal for both prey types, the larger prey size was more profitable. There was a significant correlation between relative competitive ability and mean proportion of large daphnia in the diet. In the last series the less successful competitiors caught a higher proportion of small prey than in the first series. Finally, each fish was given the choice between large and small daphnia in the absence of its competitor. The sticklebacks chose a diet similar to the one they had been allowed to select previously with competition. The previously more successful competitors concentrated on large daphnia, whereas the poorer competitors fed as generalists but not unselectively.

The fish probably learned the distance from which they had recently attacked familiar prey successfully. This ‘sure attack’ distance depends on the fish's competitive ability.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnard CJ, Brown CAJ (1981) Prey size selection and competition in the common shrew (Sorex araneus L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:239–243Google Scholar
  2. Beukerna JJ (1968) Predation by the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.): The influence of hunger and experience. Behaviour 31:1–126Google Scholar
  3. Coates D (1980) Prey-size intake in humbug damselfish, Dascyllus aruanus (Pisces, Pomacentridae) living within social groups. J Anim Ecol 49:335–340Google Scholar
  4. Curio E (1976) The ethology of predation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Eggers DM (1982) Planktivore preference by prey size. Ecology 63:381–390Google Scholar
  6. Gardner MB (1981) Mechanisms of size selectivity by planktivorous fish: A test of hypotheses. Ecology 62:571–578Google Scholar
  7. Gibson RM (1980) Optimal prey size selection by three-spined sticklebacks (Gasteuosteus aculeatus): A test of the apparent size hypothesis. Z Tierpsychol 52:291–307Google Scholar
  8. Godin JGJ (1978) Behavior of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Walbaum) toward novel prey: Influence of ontogeny and experience. Environ Biol Fishes 3:261–266Google Scholar
  9. Grossman MI, Greengard H, Ivy AC (1943) The effect of dietary composition on pancreatic enzymes. Am J Physiol 138:676–682Google Scholar
  10. Janetos AC, Cole BJ (1981) Imperfectly optimal animals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:203–209Google Scholar
  11. Kacelnik A, Houston AI, Krebs JR (1981) Optimal foraging and territorial defence in the great tit (Parus major). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:35–40Google Scholar
  12. Kislalioglu M, Gibson RN (1976) Prey “handling time” and its importance in food selection by the 15-spined stickle-back, Spinachia spinachia (L.). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 25:151–158Google Scholar
  13. Krebs JR (1973) Behavioral aspects of predation. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 73–111Google Scholar
  14. Krebs JR (1978) Optimal foraging: Decision rules for predatiors. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 23–63Google Scholar
  15. Krebs JR (1980) Optimal foraging, predation risk and territory defense. Ardea 68:83–90Google Scholar
  16. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609Google Scholar
  17. Milinski M (1977) Do all members of a swarm suffer the same predation? Z Tierpsychol 45:373–388Google Scholar
  18. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  19. Milinski M, Löwenstein C (1980) On predator selection against abnormalities of movement. A test of a hypothesis. Z Tierpsychol 53:325–340Google Scholar
  20. O'Brien WJ (1979) The predator-prey interaction of planktivorous fish and zooplankton. Am Sci 67:573–581Google Scholar
  21. O'Brien WJ, Slade NA, Vinyard GL (1976) Apparent size as the determinant of prey selection by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 57:1304–1310Google Scholar
  22. Partridge L (1981) Increased preferences for familiar foods in small mammals. Anim Behav 29:211–216Google Scholar
  23. Rubenstein DI (1981) Individual variation and competition in the everglades pygmy sunfish. J Anim Ecol 50:337–350Google Scholar
  24. Sachs L (1978) Angewandte Statistik. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: Can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  26. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  27. Vinyard GL (1980) Differential prey vulnerability and predator selectivity: Effects of evasive prey on bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and pumkinseed (L. gibbosus) predation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:2294–2299Google Scholar
  28. Ware DM (1971) Predation by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri): The effect of experience. J Fish Res Board Can 28:1847–1852Google Scholar
  29. Zach R, Smith JNM (1981) Optimal foraging in wild birds? In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior. Garland STPM Press, New York London, pp 95–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Milinski
    • 1
  1. 1.Arbeitsgruppe für Verhaltensforschung, Abteilung für BiologieRuhr-UniversitätBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations