Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 65–80

Resource distributions and diet development by trial-and-error learning

Original Article

Abstract

We study interactions between resource distributions, grouping, and diet development in foragers who learn by trial-and-error. We do this by constructing an individual-based model where individuals move and forage in groups in a 2-D space with high resource diversity and learn what to eat. By comparing diet development in different resource distributions, and in gregarious and solitary individuals, we elucidate how these factors affect patterns of diet variation. Our results indicate that different resource distributions have profound effects on learning opportunities, and thereby lead to contrasting phenomena. In uniform environments, local resource depletion by gregarious individuals, in interaction with learning, leads to diet differentiation. In patchy environments, grouping leads to enhanced diet overlap within groups and leads to differences in diet between groups. Surprisingly, mixed environments can generate all these phenomena simultaneously. Our results predict relationships between diet variation, trial-and-error learning, and resource distributions. The phenomena we describe are not evolved strategies, but arise spontaneously when groups of individuals learn to forage in certain resource distributions. This suggests that describing diet specialization or diet homogenization as the result of behavioral strategies may not always be justified.

Keywords

Individual-based model Individual diet “specialization” Social learning Intergroup diet variation Group foragers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann SA (1998) Foraging for survival. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  2. Birch LL (1999) Development of food preferences. Annu Rev Nutr 19:41–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. te Boekhorst I, Hogeweg P (1994) Self-structuring in artificial ‘CHIMPS’ offers new hypotheses for male grouping in chimpanzees. Behaviour 12:229–252Google Scholar
  4. Bolnick DI, Yang LH, Fordyce JA, Davis JM, Svanbäck R (2002) Measuring individual-level trophic specialization. Ecology 83:2936–2941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolnick DI, Svanback R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd R, Richerson R (1988) An evolutionary model of social learning: the effects of spatial and temporal variation. In: Zentall T, Galef BG Jr (eds) Social learning: psychological and biological perspectives. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 29–48Google Scholar
  7. Chapman CA, Fedigan LM (1990) Dietary differences between neighboring Cebus capucinus groups: local traditions, food availability or responses to food profitability? Folia Primatol 54:177–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman CA, Chapman LJ, Wrangham R, Isabirye-Basuta G, Ben-David K (1997) Spatial and temporal variability in the structure of a tropical forest. Afr J Ecol 35:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman CA, Chapman LJ, Gillespie TR (2002) Scale issues in the study of primate foraging: red colobus of Kibale National Park. Am J Phys Anthropol 117:349–363 DOI 10.1002/ajpa.10053 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deneubourg JL, Goss S, Franks N, Pasteels JM (1989) The blind leading the blind: modelling chemically mediated army ant raid patterns. J Insect Behav 2:719–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan AJ, Young SA (2002) Can goats learn about foods through conditioned food aversions and preferences when multiple food options are simultaneously available? J Anim Sci 80:2091–2098PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Emlen S, Oring L (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman MW, Aoki K, Kumm J (1996) Individual versus social learning: evolutionary analysis in a fluctuating environment. Anthropol Sci 104:209–232Google Scholar
  14. Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E (1996) Social learning in monkeys: primate “Primacy” reconsidered. In: Galef BG Jr, Heyes C (eds) Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. Academic, New York, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  15. Galef BG (1988) Imitation in animals: history, definition, and interpretation of data from the psychological laboratory. In: Zentall T, Galef BG Jr (eds) Social learning: psychological and biological perspecitives. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 3–28Google Scholar
  16. Galef BG, Giraldeau L-A (2001) Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Anim Behav 61:3–15 DOI 10.1006/anbe.2000.1557 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia J, Hankins WG, Rusiniak KW (1974) Behavioral regulation of the milieu interne in man and rat. Science 185:824–831PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasegawa Y, Matsuzawa T (1981) Food-aversion conditioning in Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata): a dissociation of feeding in two separate situations. Behav Neural Biol 33:237–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hemelrijk CK (2000) Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure. Anim Behav 59:1035–1048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heyes CM (1994) Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biol Rev 69:207–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinton GE, Nowlan SJ (1987) How learning can guide evolution. Complex Syst 1:495–502Google Scholar
  22. Hogeweg P, Hesper B (1985) Socioinformatic processes: MIRROR modelling methodology. J Theor Biol 113:311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karasov WH, Diamond JM (1988) Interplay between physiology and ecology in digestion. BioScience 38:602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kimball BA, Nolte D (2005) Herbivore experience with plant defense compounds influences acquisition of new flavor aversions. Appl Anim Behav Sci 91:17–34 DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matsuzawa T, Hasegawa Y (1983) Food aversion learning in Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata). A strategy to avoid a noxious food. Folia Primatol 40:247–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mead R, Curnow RN, Hasted AM (1993) Statistical methods in agriculture and experimental biology, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Provenza FD (1995) Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J Range Manag 48:2–17Google Scholar
  28. Rogers AR (1988) Does biology constrain culture? Am Anthropol 90:819–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Theoretical Biology and BioinformaticsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations