, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 60–67 | Cite as

Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators: a trade-off in the black-capped chickadee

  • Steven L. Lima
Original Papers


Animals often must feed away from protective cover, sometimes at a considerable risk of being preyed upon. Feeding at the maximum rate while away from cover may simultaneously minimize the time spent exposed to predators, but this is not always the case. Under some circumstances, carrying prey items to protective cover before they are consumed will minimize the time spent exposed to predators, whereas feeding at maximum efficiency (staying to eat prey where they are found) will actually increase the time spent exposed to predators. Whether or not there is a conflict between maximizing foraging efficiency and minimizing exposure time, depends upon the travel time to cover relative to the handling time of a prey item; short handling times and/or long travel times are associated with the no-conflict situation, whereas the conflict situation is associated with long handling times and/or short travel times to cover. Free-ranging chickadees foraging at an artificial patch at various distances from cover can distinguish between these two foraging situations. When there is no conflict, they stay and eat at the patch. Their behavior in the conflict situation indicates that they are tradingoff foraging considerations against the risk of predation. When the cost of carrying is low and the benefit gained is high, the chickadees elect to carry items to cover; they tend to stay and eat at the patch when the relative magnitudes of costs and benefits are reversed.


Travel Time Exposure Time Maximum Rate Relative Magnitude Prey Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Belovsky GE (1981) Optimal activity times and habitat choice of moose. Oecologia (Berlin) 48:22–30Google Scholar
  2. Cerri RD, Fraser DF (1983) Predation risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicting demands. Am Nat 121:552–561Google Scholar
  3. Curio E, Klump G, Regelmann K (1983) An anti-predator response in the great tit (Parus major): is it tuned to predator risk? Oecologia (Berlin) 60:83–88Google Scholar
  4. Dill LM (1983) Adaptive flexibility in the foraging behavior of fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:398–408Google Scholar
  5. Dill LM, Fraser AHG Risk of predation and the feeding behavior of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Behav Ecol Sociobiol (in press)Google Scholar
  6. Gaddis P (1980) Mixed flocks, accipiters and antipredator behavior. Condor 82:348–349Google Scholar
  7. Geer TA (1978) Effects of nesting sparrowhawks on nesting tits. Condor 80:419–422Google Scholar
  8. Grubb TC (1975) Weather dependent foraging behavior of some birds wintering in a deciduous woodland. Condor 77:175–182Google Scholar
  9. Grubb TC (1977) Weather dependent foraging behavior of some birds wintering in a deciduous woodland: horizontal adjustments. Condor 79:271–274Google Scholar
  10. Grubb TC, Greenwald L (1982) Sparrows and a brush pile: foraging responses to different combinations of predation risk and energy cost. Anim Behav 30:637–640Google Scholar
  11. Howe HF (1979) Fear and frugivory. Am Nat 115:925–931Google Scholar
  12. Klump GM, Curio E (1983) Reactions of blue tits Parus caeruleus to hawk models of different sizes. Bird Behav 4:78–81Google Scholar
  13. Kotler BP (1984) Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology 65:689–701Google Scholar
  14. Krebs JR (1980) Optimal foraging, predation risk and territory defense. Ardea 68:83–90Google Scholar
  15. Krebs JR, Stephens DW, Sutherland J (1983) Perspectives in optimal foraging. In: Brush AH, Clark GA (eds) Perspectives in Ornithology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging efficiency-predation risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165Google Scholar
  17. Lima SL, Valone TJ Influence of predation risk on diet selection: a simple example in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Mendenhall W (1971) Introduction to probability and statistics. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  19. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behavior of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  20. Morse DH (1970) Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecol Monogr 40:119–168Google Scholar
  21. Morse DH (1973) Interactions between tit flocks and sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus. Ibis 115:591–593Google Scholar
  22. Ryke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
  23. Regelmann K, Curio E (1983) Determinants of brood defense in the great tit Parus major L. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:131–145Google Scholar
  24. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  25. Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect, Notonecta hoffmanni. Ecology 73:786–796Google Scholar
  26. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd ed Freeman and Co., San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven L. Lima
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations