Oecologia

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 83–90 | Cite as

Patch use by Dipodomys deserti (Rodentia: Heteromyidae): profitability, preference, and depletion dynamics

  • Robert H. Podolsky
  • Mary V. Price
Original Papers

Summary

Granivorous desert rodents of the family Heteromyidae forage nonrandomly among “microhabitats” that vary in substrate, seed densities, and seed species composition. To explore the hypothesis that microhabitat use is sensitive to seed patch profitability, we quantified effects of seed size (1.96 vs. 5.21 mg/seed) and density (0.4–10.6 seeds/cm2) on Dipodomys deserti harvest rates, which is a measure of profitability when expressed as mg of seed taken per min. By manipulating seed density, we created large-seed and small-seed patches of known relative profitability and exposed D. deserti individuals to pairwise choices in the laboratory and field. We used three treatment classes: 1) large-seed patches that were more profitable than small-seed patches (equal seed densities); 2) large-seed and small-seed patches that were equally profitable (small-seed densities somewhat higher): and 3) large-seed patches that were less profitable than small-seed patches (small-seed densities much higher). Harvest rate increased nearly linearly with seed density, and profitability of large-seed patches was greater than small-seed patches of the same density. Cumulative harvest from a patch increased linearly with residence time up to a plateau; this “gain curve” indicates that animals move systematically within patches and hence avoid resampling already depleted areas. In the laboratory, animals visited small-seed patches first more often and visited them more frequently when they were more profitable than large-seed patches. When large-seed patches were of greater or equal profitability, large-seed patches were preferred by both measures. The expressed preference for large-seed patches, when animals were presented with equally profitable patches, suggests an underlying preference for large seeds. In the field, animals depleted all patches to a constant low profitability, in accord with qualitative predictions of optimal patch use models. These results suggest that patch preferences by D. deserti are affected by the economics of seed harvest.

Key words

Foraging economics Optimal patch use Gain curves functional response Microhabitat affinity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahams MV, Dill LD (1989) A determination of the energetic equivalence of the risk of predation. Ecology 70:999–1007Google Scholar
  2. Baum WM (1987) Random and systematic foraging, experimental studies of depletion and schedules of reinforcement. In: Kamil AC, Krebs JR, Pulliam HR (eds) Foraging Behavior. Plenum Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. BMDP Statistical Software (1985) University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers MA (1988) Seed removal experiments on desert rodents: the microhabitat by moonlight effect. J Mammal 69:201–204Google Scholar
  5. Brown JH (1973) Species diversity of seed-eating desert rodents in sand dune habitats. Ecology 54:775–787Google Scholar
  6. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47Google Scholar
  7. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136Google Scholar
  8. Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation on the European sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320Google Scholar
  9. Kotler BP (1984) Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology 65:689–701Google Scholar
  10. Kvalseth TO (1985) Cautionary note about R2. Am Statist 39:279–285Google Scholar
  11. Lovegrove BG (1989) The cost of burrowing by the social mole rats (Bathyergidae) Cryptomys damarensis and Heterocephalus glaber: the role of soil moisture. Physiol Zool 62:449–469Google Scholar
  12. Price MV (1978) The role of microhabitat in structuring desert rodent communities. Ecology 59:910–921Google Scholar
  13. Price MV (1983a) Laboratory studies of seed size and seed species selection by heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 60:259–263Google Scholar
  14. Price MV (1983b) Ecological consequences of body size: a model for patch choice in desert rodents. Oecologia 59:384–392Google Scholar
  15. Price MV, Heinz KM (1984) Effects of body size, seed density, and soil characteristics on rates of seed harvest by heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 61:420–425Google Scholar
  16. Price MV, Longland WS (1989) Use of artificial seed patches by heteromyid rodents. J Mammal 70:316–322Google Scholar
  17. Price MV, Podolsky RH (1989) Mechanisms of seed harvest by heteromyid rodents: soil texture effects on harvest rate and seed size selection. Oecologia 81:267–273Google Scholar
  18. Price MV, Reichman OJ (1987) Distribution of seeds in Sonoran desert soils: implications for heteromyid rodent foraging. Ecology 68:1797–1811Google Scholar
  19. Price MV, Waser NM (1985) Microhabitat use by heteromyid rodents: effects of artificial seed patches. Ecology 66:211–219Google Scholar
  20. Pulliam HR (1985) Foraging efficiency, resource partitioning, and the coexistence of sparrow species. Ecology 66:1829–1836Google Scholar
  21. Pulliam HR, Mills GS (1977) The use of space by wintering sparrows. Ecology 58:1393–1399Google Scholar
  22. Reichman OJ, Price MV (1990) Ecological aspects of heteromyid foraging. In: Genoways HH, Brown JH (eds) The Biology of the Family Heteromyidae. American Society of Mammalogists Special Publication, in pressGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenzweig ML, Sterner PL (1970) Population ecology of desert rodent communities: body size and seed-husking as bases for heteromyid coexistence. Ecology 51:217–224Google Scholar
  24. SAS Institute (1982) SAS user's guide. Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson SD (1987) Resource availability and microhabitat use by Merriam's kangaroo rats, Dipodomys merriami, in the Mojave Desert. J Mammal 68:256–265Google Scholar
  28. Vleck D (1979) The energy cost of burrowing by the pocket gopher Thomomys bottae. Physiol Zool 52:122–135Google Scholar
  29. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert H. Podolsky
    • 1
  • Mary V. Price
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations