Oecologia

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 278–282 | Cite as

Optimal central-place foraging by beavers: Tree-size selection in relation to defensive chemicals of quaking aspen

  • John M. Basey
  • Stephen H. Jenkins
  • Peter E. Busher
Original Papers

Summary

At a newly occupied pond, beavers preferentially felled aspen smaller than 7.5 cm in diameter and selected against larger size classes. After one year of cutting, 10% of the aspen had been cut and 14% of the living aspen exhibited the juvenile growth form. A phenolic compound which may act as a deterrent to beavers was found in low concentrations in aspen bark, and there was no significant regression of relative concentration of this compound on tree diameter. At a pond which had been intermittently occupied by beavers for over 20 years, beavers selected against aspen smaller than 4.5 cm in diameter, and selected in favor of aspen larger than 19.5 cm in diameter. After more than 28 years of cutting at this site, 51% of the aspen had been cut and 49% of the living aspen were juvenileform. The phenolic compound was found in significantly higher concentrations in aspen bark than at the newly occupied site, and there was a significant negative regression of relative concentration on tree diameter. The results of this study show that responses to browsing by trees place constraints on the predictive value of standard energy-based optimal foraging models, and limitations on the use of such models. Future models should attempt to account for inducible responses of plants to damage and increases in concentrations of secondary metabolites through time.

Key words

Castor canadensis Populus tremuloides Optimal foraging Central-place foraging Plant defense Juvenile-form plants 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldous SE (1938) Beaver food utilization studies. J Wildl Mgmt 2:215–222Google Scholar
  2. Belovsky GE (1981) Food plant selection by a generalist herbivore: the moose. Ecology 62:1020–1030Google Scholar
  3. Belovsky GE (1984a) Summer diet optimization by beaver. Am Mid Nat 111:209–222Google Scholar
  4. Belovsky GE (1984b) Herbivore foraging: a comparative test of three models. Am Nat 124:97–115Google Scholar
  5. Bryant JP (1981) Phytochemical deterrence of snowshoe hare browsing by adventitious shoots of four Alaskan trees. Science 213:889–890Google Scholar
  6. Bryant JP, Kuropat PJ (1980) Selection of winter forage by subarctic browsing vertebrates: the role of plant chemistry. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:261–285Google Scholar
  7. Bryant JP, Wieland GD, Clausen T, Kuropat P (1985) Interactions of snowshoe hare and feltleaf willow in Alaska. Ecology 60:1564–1573Google Scholar
  8. Busher PE (1980) The population dynamics and behavior of beavers in the Sierra Nevada. PhD diss, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno Nevada, xii + 147 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Busher PE (1987) Population parameters and family composition of beaver in California. J Mamm 68:860–864Google Scholar
  10. Carlsson A (1983) Maximizing energy delivery to dependent young: a field experiment with red-backed shrikes (Lanius cullurio). J Anim Ecol 52:697–704Google Scholar
  11. Carlsson A, Moreno J (1985) Central place foraging in wheatears (Oenanthe oenanthe L): foraging itineraries when feeding nestlings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:307–316Google Scholar
  12. Chesson J (1983) The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64:1297–1304Google Scholar
  13. clausen TP, Reichardt PB, Bryant JP (1986) Pinosylvin and pinosylvin methyl ether as feeding deterrents in green alder. J Chem Ecol 12:2117–2131Google Scholar
  14. Davidson DW (1978) Experimental tests of optimal diet in two social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 4:35–41Google Scholar
  15. Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289Google Scholar
  16. Hall JG (1960) Willow and aspen in the ecology of beaver on Sagehen Creek, California. Ecology 41:484–494Google Scholar
  17. Janzen DH, Martin PS (1982) Neotropical anachronisms: the fruits the Gomphotheres ate. Science 215:19–27Google Scholar
  18. Jenkins SH (1979) Seasonal and year-to-year differences in food selection by beavers. Oecologia (Berl) 44:112–116Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins SH (1980) A size-distance relation in food selection by beavers. Ecology 61:740–746Google Scholar
  20. Klein DR (1977) Winter food preference of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) in interior Alaska. Proc Int Congr Game Biol 13:266–275Google Scholar
  21. Kramer PJ, Koslowski TT (1979) Physiology of woody plants. Academic Press, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Krebs JR, Avery ML (1985) Central place foraging in the European bee-eater, Merops apiaster J Anim Ecol 54:459–472Google Scholar
  23. Lessels CM, Stephens DW (1983) Central place foraging: single prey loaders again. Anim Behav 31:238–243Google Scholar
  24. Orians GH, Pearsons NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DH, Mitchell R, Stairs G (eds) Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio State Univ Press, Columbus, pp 155–177Google Scholar
  25. McGinley MA, Whitman TG (1985) Central place foraging by beavers (Castor canadensis): a test of foraging predictions and the impact of selective feeding on the growth form of cottonwoods (Populus fremontii). Oecologia (Berl) 66:558–562Google Scholar
  26. Palo TP (1984) Distribution of birch (Betula spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) secondary metabolites and their potential role as chemical defense against herbivores. J Chem Ecol 10:499–520Google Scholar
  27. Pinkowski B (1983) Foraging behavior of beavers (Castor canadensis) in North Dakota. J Mamm 64:312–314Google Scholar
  28. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Quart Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
  29. Reichardt PB, Bryant JP, Clausen TP, Wieland GD (1984) Defense of winter-dormant Alaska paper birch against snowshoe hares. Oecologia (Berl) 65:58–69Google Scholar
  30. Schoener TW (1979) Generality of the size-distance relation in models of optimal feeding. Am Nat 114:902–914Google Scholar
  31. Sinclair ARE, Krebs CJ, Smith JNM (1982) Diet quality and food limitation in herbivores: the case of snowshoe hare. Canad J Zool 60:889–897Google Scholar
  32. Sinclair ARE, Smith JNM (1984) Do plant secondary compounds determine feeding preferences of snowshoe hares? Oecologia (Berl) 61:403–410Google Scholar
  33. Stegeman LC (1954) The production of aspen and its utilization by beaver on the Huntington Forest. J Wildl Mgmt 18:348–358Google Scholar
  34. Tahvanainen J, Helle E, Julkunen-Titto R, Lavola A (1985) Phenolic compounds of willow bark as deterrents against feeding by mountain hare. Oecologia (Berl) 65:319–323Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Basey
    • 1
  • Stephen H. Jenkins
    • 1
  • Peter E. Busher
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.College of Basic StudiesBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations