Oecologia

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 162–172 | Cite as

Prey selection by thaidid gastropods: some observational and experimental field tests of foraging models

  • A. Richard Palmer
Original Papers

Summary

Field observations and experiments revealed that predatory intertidal gastropods of the genus Thais (or Nucella) were able both to recognize the expected food value of encountered prey (expected energy or growth potential gained per unit handling time) and to monitor their average yield over time (average energy or growth potential gained per unit foraging time). They appeared to discriminate not only among prey species, but also among different sized individuals of the same prey species. The evidence supporting these interpretations included: 1) field observations of snails feeding preferentially on prey types of higher expected food value even though lower value prey types were available and abundant, 2) a very limited number of direct underwater observations of foraging snails rejecting encountered items that were either of lower expected value than the item finally eaten or not measurably different from it, and 3) field (=‘arena’) experiments in which both average yield, and the distribution and abundance of potential prey were controlled: snails conditioned at a high average yield fed preferentially on high value items, while those animals conditioned at a low yield consumed prey in the proportions that they were encountered. These behaviors are all consistent with a prey-selection decision motivated by energetic considerations. Further, the field experiments indicated that these predatory gastropods could select items from a diverse array of prey so as to maximize growth in their natural environment. The behaviors were not consistent with three alternative foraging hypotheses: non-selective foraging, frequency-dependent foraging on prey types (here, sizes of particular prey species), and frequency-dependent foraging on prey species. Deviations from some of the quantitative predictions of optimal foraging theory appeared related to learning and risk.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott RT (1974) American Seashells. Van Nostr Reinhold Co 663 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayliss DE (1982) Switching by Lepsiella vinosa (Gastropoda) in South Australian mangroves. Oecologia (Berlin) 54:212–226Google Scholar
  3. Belovsky GE (1978) Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theor Pop Biol 14:105–134Google Scholar
  4. Bertness MD, Schneider DE (1976) Temperature relations of Puget Sound thaids in reference to their intertidal distribution. Veliger 19:47–58Google Scholar
  5. Blake JW (1960) Oxygen consumption of bivalve prey and their attractiveness to the gastropod Urosalpinx cinerea. Limnol Oceanogr 5:273–280Google Scholar
  6. Carefoot TH (1977) Pacific Seashores. Univ of Washington Press, Seattle, 208 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid Amer Natur 110:141–151Google Scholar
  8. Dethier VG (1976) The Hungry Fly. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Draulans D (1982) Foraging and size selection of mussels by the tufted duck, Aythya fuligula. J Anim Ecol 51:943–956Google Scholar
  10. Ebersole JP, Wilson JC (1980) Optimal foraging: the responses of Peromyscus leucopus to experimental changes in processing time and hunger. Oecologia (Berlin) 46:80–85Google Scholar
  11. Edwards DC, Huebner JD (1977) Feeding and growth rates of Polinices duplicatus preying on Mya arenaria at Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts. Ecology 58:1218–1236Google Scholar
  12. Elner RW, Hughes RN (1978) Energy maximization in the diet of the shore crab Carcinus maenas. J Anim Ecol 47:102–116Google Scholar
  13. Emlen JM (1966) Time energy and risk in two species of carnivorous gastropods, PhD Dissertation, Univ Wash, Seattle 128 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Emlen JM (1973) Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 493 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Estabrook GF, Dunham AE (1976) Optimal diet as a function of absolute abundance, relative abundance, and relative value of available prey. Amer Natur 110:401–413Google Scholar
  16. Fullick TG, Greenwood JJD (1979) Frequency dependent food selection in relation to two models. Amer Natur 113:762–765Google Scholar
  17. Goss-Custard JD (1977) Optimal foraging and size selection of worms by redshank, Tringa totanus, in the field. Anim Behav 25:10–29Google Scholar
  18. Greenwood JJD, Elton RA (1979) Analysing experiments on frequency-dependent selection by predators. J Anim Ecol 48:721–738Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths D (1975) Prey availability and the food of predators. Ecology 56:1209–1214Google Scholar
  20. Hall SJ, Todd CD, Gordon AD (1982) The influence of ingestive conditioning on the prey species selection in Aeolidia papillosa (Mollusca Nudibranchia). J Anim Ecol 51:907–921Google Scholar
  21. Hughes RN (1979) Optimal diets under the energy maximization premise: the effects of recognition time and learning. Amer Natur 113:209–221Google Scholar
  22. Hughes RN (1980) Optimal foraging theory in the marine context. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 18:423–481Google Scholar
  23. Jaeger RG, Rubin AM (1982) Foraging tactics of a terrestrial salamander: judging prey profitability. J Anim Ecol 51:167–176Google Scholar
  24. Kohn AJ (1961) Chemoreception in gastropod molluscs. Amer Zool 1:291–308Google Scholar
  25. Krebs JR, Erickson T, Webber MT, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal prey selection in the great tit (Parus major). Anim Behav 25:30–38Google Scholar
  26. Lacher TE Jr, Willig MR, Mares MA (1982) Food preference as a function of resource abundance with multiple prey types: an experiental analysis of optimal foraging theory. Amer Natur 120:297–316Google Scholar
  27. Lewontin RC (1979) Fitness survival and optimality. Pages 3–21. In: Horn HR, Stairs GR, Mitchell RD (eds), Analysis of Ecological Systems, Ohio State University Press p 312Google Scholar
  28. Menge BA (1972) Foraging strategy of a starfish in relation to actual prey availability and environmental predictability. Ecol Mon 42:25–50Google Scholar
  29. Menge J, Lubchenco (1974) Prey selection and foraging period of the predaceous rocky intertidal gastropod Acanthina punctulata. Oecologia (Berlin) 17:293–316Google Scholar
  30. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behavior of sticklebacks (Gastrosteus aculeatus). Nature (London) 275:642–644Google Scholar
  31. Miller SL (1974) Adaptive design of locomotion and foot form in prosobranch gastropods. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 14:99–156Google Scholar
  32. Murdoch WW (1969) Switching in general predators: experients on predator specificity and stability of prey populations Ecol Mon 39:335–354Google Scholar
  33. Murdoch WW, Avery S, Smyth MEB (1975) Switching in predatory fish. Ecology 56:1094–1105Google Scholar
  34. Newsome GE, Gee JH (1978) Prefence and selection of prey by creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) inhabiting the Mink River, Manitoba. Can J Zool 56:2486–2497Google Scholar
  35. Ostfeld RS (1982) Foraging strategies and prey switching in the California sea otter. Oecologia (Berlin) 53:170–178Google Scholar
  36. Palmer AR (1980) A comparative and experimental study of feeding and growth in thaidid gastropods. PhD dissertation, Univ Wash, Seattle 320 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Palmer AR (1982) Growth in marine gastropods: a non-destructive technique for measuring shell and body weights. Malacologia 23:63–73Google Scholar
  38. Palmer AR (1983) Growth rates as a measure of food value in thaidid gastropods: assumptions and implications for prey morphology and distribution. J exp mar Biol Ecol 73:95–124Google Scholar
  39. Pulliam HR (1974) On the theory of optimal diets. Amer Nat 108:59–74Google Scholar
  40. Pulliam HR (1975) Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. Amer Natur 109:765–768Google Scholar
  41. Ricketts EF, Calvin J, Hedgepeth JW (1968) Between Pacific Tides. Stanford Univ Pr, Stanford, 614 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Royama T (1970) Factors governing the hunting behavior and selection of food by the great tit Parus major. J Anim Ecol 39:619–668Google Scholar
  43. Schluter D (1981) Does the theory of optimal diets apply in complex environments? Amer Natur 118:139–147Google Scholar
  44. Schoener TW (1971) The theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404Google Scholar
  45. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two competing demands? Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  46. Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect, Notonecta hoffmanni. Ecology 63:786–798Google Scholar
  47. Snyder NFR, Snyder HA (1971) Pheromone-mediated behavior of Fasciolaris tulipa. Anim Behav 19:257–268Google Scholar
  48. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish, (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052Google Scholar
  49. Werner EE, Mittlebach GG (1981) Optimal foraging: field tests of optimal diet choice and habitat switching. Amer Zool 21:813–829Google Scholar
  50. Wood L (1968) Physiological and ecological aspects of prey selection by the marine gastropod Urosalpinx cinerea (Prosobranchia: Muricidae). Malacologia 6:267–320Google Scholar
  51. Zach R (1978) Selection and dropping of whelks by northwestern crows. Behavior 67:134–147Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Richard Palmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations