Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 67, Issue 10, pp 1541–1553 | Cite as

A practical guide to avoid giving up on giving-up densities

  • Miguel A. Bedoya-PerezEmail author
  • Alexandra J. R. Carthey
  • Valentina S. A. Mella
  • Clare McArthur
  • Peter B. Banks
Review

Abstract

The giving-up density (GUD) framework provides a powerful experimental approach with a strong theoretical underpinning to quantify foraging outcomes in heterogeneous landscapes. Since its inception, the GUD approach has been applied successfully to a vast range of foraging species and foraging scenarios. However, its application is not simple, as anyone who has tried to use it for the first time might attest. Limitations of the technique were noted at its conception, yet only the artificiality of the patches, the appropriateness of the food resource, and the possibility of multiple visiting foragers were identified. Here we show the current uses of GUD and outline the practical benefits as well as the often overlooked limitations of the technique. We define seven major points that need to be addressed when applying this methodology: (1) the curvilinearity between harvest rate and energy, (2) the energetic state of the forager, (3) the effect of group foraging, (4) food quality and substrate properties, (5) the predictability of the patch, (6) behavioral traits of the forager, and (7) nontarget species. We also suggest how GUD experiments can be enhanced by incorporating complementary methods (such as cameras) to better understand the foraging processes involved in the GUD itself. We conclude that the benefits of using GUD outweigh the costs, but that its limitations should not be ignored. Incorporating new methods when using GUD can potentially offer novel and important insights into the study of foraging behavior.

Keywords

Foraging Giving-up density Landscape of fear Methodological limitations Practical assumptions Supplementary approaches 

References

  1. Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML, Elbaz M, Ziv Y (2005) Does interspecific competition from congeners cause the scarcity of Gerbillus henleyi in productive sandy desert habitats? J Anim Ecol 74:567–578Google Scholar
  2. Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML, Subach A (2001) The cost of interspecific competition in two gerbil species. J Anim Ecol 70:561–567Google Scholar
  3. Abu Baker MA, Brown JS (2010) Islands of fear: effects of wooded patches on habitat suitability of the striped mouse in a South African grassland. Funct Ecol 24:1313–1322Google Scholar
  4. Abu Baker MA, Brown JS (2012) Patch use behaviour of Elephantulus myurus and Micaelamys namaquensis: the role of diet, foraging substrates and escape substrates. Afr J Ecol 50:167–175Google Scholar
  5. Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383Google Scholar
  6. Alofs KM, Polivka KM (2004) Microhabitat-scale influences of resources and refuge on habitat selection by an estuarine opportunist fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 271:297–306Google Scholar
  7. Altendorf KB, Laundré JW, López González CA, Brown JS (2001) Assessing effects of predation risk on foraging behavior of mule deer. J Mammal 82:430–439Google Scholar
  8. Amano T, Ushiyama K, Fujita G, Higuchi H (2006) Foraging patch selection and departure by non-omniscient foragers: a field example in white-fronted geese. Ethology 112:544–553Google Scholar
  9. Andruskiw M, Fryxell JM, Thompson ID, Baker JA (2008) Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American Marten. Ecology 89:2273–2280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Arthur AD, Pech RP, Dickman CR (2004) Habitat structure mediates the non-lethal effects of predation on enclosed populations of house mice. J Anim Ecol 73:867–877Google Scholar
  11. Berger-Tal O, Kotler BP (2010) State of emergency: behavior of gerbils is affected by the hunger state of their predators. Ecology 91:593–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler B, Brown J (2009) Look before you leap: is risk of injury a foraging cost? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1821–1827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2010) Complex state-dependent games between owls and gerbils. Ecol Lett 13:302–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bozinovic F, Vásquez RA (1999) Patch use in a diurnal rodent: handling and searching under thermoregulatory costs. Funct Ecol 13:602–610Google Scholar
  15. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47Google Scholar
  16. Brown JS (1992) Patch use under predation risk: I. Models and predictions. Ann Zool Fenn 29:301–309Google Scholar
  17. Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71Google Scholar
  18. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Mitchell WA (1997) Competition between birds and mammals: a comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils. Evol Ecol 11:757–771Google Scholar
  19. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Smith RJ, Wirtz WO (1988) The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76:408–415Google Scholar
  20. Brown JS, Morgan RA (1995) Effects of foraging behavior and spatial scale on diet selectivity: a test with fox squirrels. Oikos 74:122–136Google Scholar
  21. Bytheway J, Carthey AR, Banks P (2013) Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol:1–11Google Scholar
  22. Caccia FD, Chaneton EJ, Kitzberger T (2006) Trophic and non-trophic pathways mediate apparent competition through post-dispersal seed predation in a Patagonian mixed forest. Oikos 113:469–480Google Scholar
  23. Carter SP, Bright PW (2003) Reedbeds as refuges for water voles (Arvicola terrestris) from predation by introduced mink (Mustela vison). Biol Conserv 111:371–376Google Scholar
  24. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. China V, Kotler BP, Shefer N, Brown JS, Abramsky Z (2008) Density-dependent habitat and patch use in gerbils: consequences of safety in numbers? Isr J Ecol Evol 54:373–388Google Scholar
  26. Dall SRX, Kotler BP, Bouskila A (2001) Attention, ‘apprehension’ and gerbils searching in patches. Ann Zool Fenn 38:15–23Google Scholar
  27. Davidson DL, Morris DW (2001) Density-dependent foraging effort of Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Funct Ecol 15:575–583Google Scholar
  28. Dickman CR, Greenville AC, Tamayo B, Wardle GM (2011) Spatial dynamics of small mammals in central Australian desert habitats: the role of drought refugia. J Mammal 92:1193–1209Google Scholar
  29. Druce DJ, Brown JS, Kerley GIH, Kotler BP, Mackey RL, Slotow ROB (2009) Spatial and temporal scaling in habitat utilization by klipspringers (Oreotragus oreotragus) determined using giving-up densities. Austral Ecol 34:577–587Google Scholar
  30. Embar K, Kotler BP, Mukherjee S (2011) Risk management in optimal foragers: the effect of sightlines and predator type on patch use, time allocation, and vigilance in gerbils. Oikos 120:1657–1666Google Scholar
  31. Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611Google Scholar
  32. Fanson BG, Fanson KV, Brown JS (2010) Ecological factors affecting the foraging behaviour of Xerus rutilus. Afr Zool 45:265–272Google Scholar
  33. Felts J, Schmidt KA (2010) Multitasking and eavesdropping in cotton rats foraging under predation risk. Behav Ecol 21:1080–1086Google Scholar
  34. Garb J, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2000) Foraging and community consequences of seed size for coexisting Negev desert granivores. Oikos 88:291–300Google Scholar
  35. Gawlik DE (2002) The effects of prey availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecol Monogr 72:329–346Google Scholar
  36. Gideon W, Abramsky Z, Valdivia N, Kotler BP (2005) The role of vegetation characteristics and foraging substrate in organizing a centrifugal gerbil community. J Mammal 86:1009–1014Google Scholar
  37. Gutman R, Dayan T (2005) Temporal partitioning: an experiment with two species of spiny mice. Ecology 86:164–173Google Scholar
  38. Gutman R, Dayan T, Levy O, Schubert I, Kronfeld-Schor N (2011) The effect of the lunar cycle on fecal cortisol metabolite levels and foraging ecology of nocturnally and diurnally active spiny mice. PLoS One 6:e23446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hay ME, Fuller PJ (1981) Seed escape from heteromyid rodents: the importance of microhabitat and seed preference. Ecology 62:1395–1399Google Scholar
  41. Herman CS, Valone TJ (2000) The effect of mammalian predator scent on the foraging behavior of Dipodomys merriami. Oikos 91:139–145Google Scholar
  42. Hernández L, Laundré JW, Gurung M (2005) Use of camera traps to measure predation risk in a puma–mule deer system. Wildl Soc Bull 33:353–358Google Scholar
  43. Hochman V, Kotler BP (2006) Effects of food quality, diet preference and water on patch use by Nubian ibex. Oikos 112:547–554Google Scholar
  44. Holtcamp WN, Grant WE, Vinson SB (1997) Patch use under predation hazard: effect of the red imported fire ant on deer mouse foraging behavior. Ecology 78:308–317Google Scholar
  45. Hoogland JL, Sherman PW (1976) Advantages and disadvantages of bank swallow (Riparia riparia) coloniality. Ecol Monogr 46:33–58Google Scholar
  46. Houle A, Vickery WL, Chapman CA (2006) Testing mechanisms of coexistence among two species of frugivorous primates. J Anim Ecol 75:1034–1044PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hughes JJ, Ward D, Perrin MR (1995) Effects of substrate on foraging decisions by a Namib desert gerbil. J Mammal 76:638–645Google Scholar
  48. Iribarren C, Kotler B (2012) Patch use and vigilance behaviour by Nubian ibex: the role of the effectiveness of vigilance. Evol Ecol Res 14:223–234Google Scholar
  49. Jacob J, Brown JS (2000) Microhabitat use, giving-up densities and temporal activity as short- and long-term anti-predator behaviors in common voles. Oikos 91:131–138Google Scholar
  50. Kilpatrick AM (2003) The impact of thermoregulatory costs on foraging behaviour: a test with American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and eastern grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Evol Ecol Res 5:781–786Google Scholar
  51. Kirmani SN, Banks PB, McArthur C (2010) Integrating the costs of plant toxins and predation risk in foraging decisions of a mammalian herbivore. Oecologia 164:349–356PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kohlmann SG, Risenhoover KL (1998) Effects of resource distribution, patch spacing, and preharvest information on foraging decisions of northern bobwhites. Behav Ecol 9:177–186Google Scholar
  53. Kotler BP, Brown J, Mukherjee S, Berger-Tal O, Bouskila A (2010) Moonlight avoidance in gerbils reveals a sophisticated interplay among time allocation, vigilance and state-dependent foraging. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1469–1474Google Scholar
  54. Kotler BP, Brown JS (1988) Environmental heterogeneity and the coexistence of desert rodents. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:281–307Google Scholar
  55. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Bouskila A, Mukherjee S, Goldberg T (2004) Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: Seasonal changes in schedules of activity and aprehension. Isr J Zool 50:256–271Google Scholar
  56. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Dall SRX, Gresser S, Ganey D, Bouskila A (2002) Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: temporal dynamics of resource depletion and apprehension in gerbils. Evol Ecol Res 4:495–518Google Scholar
  57. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hickey M (1999) Food storability and the foraging behavior of fox squirrels (Sciurus niger). Am Midl Nat 142:77–86Google Scholar
  58. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Oldfield A, Thorson J, Cohen D (2001) Foraging substrate and escape substrate: patch use by three species of gerbils. Ecology 82:1781–1790Google Scholar
  59. Kotler BP, Dickman CR, Brown JS (1998) The effects of water on patch use by two Simpson Desert granivores (Corvus coronoides and Pseudomys hermannsburgensis). Austral Ecol 23:574–578Google Scholar
  60. Kotler BP, Dickman CR, Wasserberg G, Ovadia O (2005) The use of time and space by male and female gerbils exploiting a pulsed resource. Oikos 109:594–602Google Scholar
  61. Kotler BP, Gross JE, Mitchell WA (1994) Applying patch use to assess aspects of foraging behavior in Nubian ibex. J Wildl Manage 58:299–307Google Scholar
  62. Kovacs E, Crowther M, Webb J, Dickman C (2012) Population and behavioural responses of native prey to alien predation. Oecologia 168:947–957PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Kronfeld-Schor N, Dayan T, Jones ME, Kremer I, Mandelik Y, Wollberg M, Yassur Y, Gaton DD (2001) Retinal structure and foraging microhabitat use of the golden spiny mouse (Acomys russatus). J Mammal 82:1016–1025Google Scholar
  64. Landeau L, Terborgh J (1986) Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation. Anim Behav 34:1372–1380Google Scholar
  65. Leaver LA, Daly M (2003) Effect of predation risk on selectivity in heteromyid rodents. Behav Process 64:71–75Google Scholar
  66. Liesenjohann T, Eccard J (2008) Foraging under uniform risk from different types of predators. BMC Ecol 8:19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Lindsay N (1918) The magic pudding: the adventures of Bunyip Bluegum. Angus & Robertson, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  68. Livoreil B, Giraldeau L-A (1997) Patch departure decisions by spice finches foraging singly or in groups. Anim Behav 54:967–977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Lortie CJ, Ganey DT, Kotler BP (2000) The effects of gerbil foraging on the natural seedbank and consequences on the annual plant community. Oikos 90:399–407Google Scholar
  70. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609Google Scholar
  71. McArthur C, Orlando P, Banks PB, Brown JS (2012) The foraging tightrope between predation risk and plant toxins: a matter of concentration. Funct Ecol 26:74–83Google Scholar
  72. Milinski M (1977a) Do all members of a swarm suffer the same predation? Z Tierpsychol 45:373–388Google Scholar
  73. Milinski M (1977b) Experiments on the selection by predators against spatial oddity of their prey. Z Tierpsychol 43:311–325Google Scholar
  74. Mohr K, Vibe-Petersen S, Jeppesen LL, Bildsøe M, Leirs H (2003) Foraging of multimammate mice, Mastomys natalensis, under different predation pressure: cover, patch-dependent decisions and density-dependent GUDs. Oikos 100:459–468Google Scholar
  75. Molokwu MN, Nilsson J-Å, Olsson O (2011) Diet selection in birds: trade-off between energetic content and digestibility of seeds. Behav Ecol 22:639–647Google Scholar
  76. Morris DW (1997) Optimally foraging deer mice in prairie mosaics: a test of habitat theory and absence of landscape effects. Oikos 80:31–42Google Scholar
  77. Morris DW (2005) Habitat-dependent foraging in a classic predator–prey system: a fable from snowshoe hares. Oikos 109:239–254Google Scholar
  78. Morris DW (2009) Apparent predation risk: tests of habitat selection theory reveal unexpected effects of competition. Evol Ecol Res 11:209–225Google Scholar
  79. Nolet BA, Fuld VN, van Rijswijk MEC (2006) Foraging costs and accessibility as determinants of giving-up densities in a swan–pondweed system. Oikos 112:353–362Google Scholar
  80. Nonacs P (2001) State dependent behavior and the marginal value theorem. Behav Ecol 12:71–83Google Scholar
  81. Olsson O (2006) Bayesian foraging with only two patch types. Oikos 112:285–297Google Scholar
  82. Olsson O, Brown JS (2010) Smart, smarter, smartest: foraging information states and coexistence. Oikos 119:292–303Google Scholar
  83. Olsson O, Brown JS, Smith HG (2001a) Gain curves in depletable food patches: a test of five models with European starlings. Evol Ecol Res 3:285–310Google Scholar
  84. Olsson O, Wiktander U, Holmgren NMA, Nilsson SG (1999) Gaining ecological information about bayesian foragers through their behaviour. II. A field test with woodpeckers. Oikos 87:264–276Google Scholar
  85. Olsson O, Wiktander U, Malmqvist A, Nilsson SG (2001b) Variability of patch type preferences in relation to resource availability and breeding success in a bird. Oecologia 127:435–443Google Scholar
  86. Olsson O, Wiktander U, Nilsson SG (2000) Daily foraging routines and feeding effort of a small bird feeding on a predictable resource. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1457–1461Google Scholar
  87. Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2005) Patch shape, connectivity, and foraging by oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). J Mammal 86:569–575Google Scholar
  88. Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2009) Temperature and cloud cover, but not predator urine, affect winter foraging of mice. Ethology 115:641–648Google Scholar
  89. Ovadia O, Zu DH (2003) The effect of intra- and interspecific aggression on patch residence time in Negev Desert gerbils: a competing risk analysis. Behav Ecol 14:583–591Google Scholar
  90. Perrin MR, Kotler BP (2005) A test of five mechanisms of species coexistence between rodents in a southern African savanna. Afr Zool 40:55–61Google Scholar
  91. Persson A, Stenberg M (2006) Linking patch-use behavior, resource density, and growth expectations in fish. Ecology 87:1953–1959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Pickett KN, Hik DS, Newsome AE, Pech RP (2005) The influence of predation risk on foraging behaviour of brushtail possums in Australian woodlands. Wildl Res 32:121–130Google Scholar
  93. Podolsky RH, Price MV (1990) Patch use by Dipodomys deserti (Rodentia: Heteromyidae): profitability, preference, and depletion dynamics. Oecologia 83:83–90Google Scholar
  94. Powell GVN (1985) Sociobiology and adaptive significance of interspecific foraging flocks in the neotropics. Ornithol Monogr:713–732Google Scholar
  95. Price MV, Correll RA (2001) Depletion of seed patches by Merriams kangaroo rats: are GUD assumptions met? Ecol Lett 4:334–343Google Scholar
  96. Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137Google Scholar
  98. Randall D, Burggren W, French K (2002) Eckert Animal physiology: mechanisms and adaptations, 5th edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  99. Raveh A, Kotler BP, Abramsky Z, Krasnov BR (2011) Driven to distraction: detecting the hidden costs of flea parasitism through foraging behaviour in gerbils. Ecol Lett 14:47–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Réale D, Festa-Bianchet M (2003) Predator-induced natural selection on temperament in bighorn ewes. Anim Behav 65:463–470Google Scholar
  101. Reed AW, Kaufman GA, Kaufman DW (2005) Rodent seed predation and GUDs: effect of burning and topography. Can J Zool 83:1279–1285Google Scholar
  102. Rosemier JN, Storer AJ (2010) Assessing the responses of native small mammals to an incipient invasion of beech bark disease through changes in seed production of American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Am Midl Nat 164:238–259Google Scholar
  103. Sánchez F, Korine C, Kotler B, Pinshow B (2008a) Ethanol concentration in food and body condition affect foraging behavior in Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus). Naturwissenschaften 95:561–567PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Sánchez F, Kotler BP, Korine C, Pinshow B (2008b) Sugars are complementary resources to ethanol in foods consumed by Egyptian fruit bats. J Exp Biol 211:1475–1481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Schmidt KA (2000) Interactions between food chemistry and predation risk in fox squirrels. Ecology 81:2077–2085Google Scholar
  106. Schmidt KA, Brown JS, Morgan RA (1998) Plant defenses as complementary resources: a test with squirrels. Oikos 81:130–142Google Scholar
  107. Schmidt KA, Lee E, Ostfeld RS, Sieving K (2008) Eastern chipmunks increase their perception of predation risk in response to titmouse alarm calls. Behav Ecol 19:759–763Google Scholar
  108. Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS (2003) Mice in space: space use predicts the interaction between mice and songbirds. Ecology 84:3276–3283Google Scholar
  109. Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS (2008) Eavesdropping squirrels reduce their future value of food under the perceived presence of cache robbers. Am Nat 171:386–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Schwanz LE, Brisson D, Gomes-Solecki M, Ostfeld RS (2011) Linking disease and community ecology through behavioural indicators: immunochallenge of white-footed mice and its ecological impacts. J Anim Ecol 80:204–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Schwanz LE, Previtali MA, Gomes-Solecki M, Brisson D, Ostfeld RS (2012) Immunochallenge reduces risk sensitivity during foraging in white-footed mice. Anim Behav 83:155–161Google Scholar
  112. Shrader AM, Brown JS, Kerley GIH, Kotler BP (2008a) Do free-ranging domestic goats show ‘landscapes of fear’? Patch use in response to habitat features and predator cues. J Arid Environ 72:1811–1819Google Scholar
  113. Shrader AM, Kotler BP, Brown JS, Kerley GIH (2008b) Providing water for goats in arid landscapes: effects on feeding effort with regard to time period, herd size and secondary compounds. Oikos 117:466–472Google Scholar
  114. Smith RJ (1995) Harvest rates and escape speeds in two coexisting species of montane ground squirrels. J Mammal 76:189–195Google Scholar
  115. Soobramoney S, Perrin MR (2008) A comparison of giving-up densities of five species of granivorous birds. Ostrich 79:101–104Google Scholar
  116. Spencer RJ, Cavanough VC, Baxter GS, Kennedy MS (2005) Adult free zones in small mammal populations: response of Australian native rodents to reduced cover. Austral Ecol 30:868–876Google Scholar
  117. Stapp P, Lindquist MD (2007) Roadside foraging by kangaroo rats in a grazed short-grass prairie landscape. West N Am Nat 67:368–377Google Scholar
  118. Stenberg M, Persson A (2005) The effects of spatial food distribution and group size on foraging behaviour in a benthic fish. Behav Process 70:41–50Google Scholar
  119. Stenberg M, Persson A (2006) Patch use behaviour in benthic fish depends on their long-term growth prospects. Oikos 112:332–341Google Scholar
  120. Stephens DW, Brown JS, Ydenberg RC (2007) Foraging. Behaviour and ecology, 1st edn. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  121. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory, 1st edn. Princenton University Press, PrincentonGoogle Scholar
  122. Stokes VL, Pech RP, Banks PB, Arthur AD (2004) Foraging behaviour and habitat use by Antechinus flavipes and Sminthopsis murina (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) in response to predation risk in eucalypt woodland. Biol Conserv 117:331–342Google Scholar
  123. Strauβ A, Solmsdorff KY, Pech R, Jacob J (2008) Rats on the run: removal of alien terrestrial predators affects bush rat behaviour. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1551–1558Google Scholar
  124. Thiollay J-M (1999) Frequency of mixed species flocking in tropical forest birds and correlates of predation risk: an intertropical comparison. J Avian Biol 30:282–294Google Scholar
  125. Trebatická L, Sundell J, Tkadlec E, Ylönen H (2008) Behaviour and resource use of two competing vole species under shared predation risk. Oecologia 157:707–715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Valone TJ (1991) Bayesian and prescient assessment: foraging with pre-harvest information. Anim Behav 41:569–577Google Scholar
  127. van Gils JA, Schenk IW, Bos O, Piersma T (2003) Incompletely informed shorebirds that face a digestive constraint maximize net energy gain when exploiting patches. Am Nat 161:777–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Vásquez RA, Grossi B, Márquez IN (2006) On the value of information: studying changes in patch assessment abilities through learning. Oikos 112:298–310Google Scholar
  129. Vlasman KL, Fryxell JM (2002) Seasonal changes in territory use by red squirrels, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, and responses to food augmentation. Can J Zool 80:1957–1965Google Scholar
  130. Wasserberg G, Kotler BP, Morris DW, Abramsky Z (2007) A field test of the centrifugal community organization model using psammophilic gerbils in Israel's southern coastal plain. Evol Ecol Res 9:299–311Google Scholar
  131. Webster SJ, Dill LM, Butterworth K (2007) The effect of sea lice infestation on the salinity preference and energetic expenditure of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64:672–680Google Scholar
  132. Wilkinson GS (1984) Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat. Nature 308:181–184Google Scholar
  133. Ylönen H, Jacob J, Davies MJ, Singleton GR (2002) Predation risk and habitat selection of Australian house mice, Mus domesticus, during an incipient plague: desperate behaviour due to food depletion. Oikos 99:284–289Google Scholar
  134. Ylönen H, Ronkainen H (1994) Breeding suppression in the bank vole as antipredatory adaptation in a predictable environment. Evol Ecol 8:658–666Google Scholar
  135. Yunger JA, Meserve PL, Gutiérrez JR (2002) Small-mammal foraging behavior: mechanisms for coexistence and implication for population dynamics. Ecol Monogr 72:561–577Google Scholar
  136. Ziv Y, Kotler BP (2003) Giving-up densities of foraging gerbils: the effect of interspecific competition on patch use. Evol Ecol 17:333–347Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel A. Bedoya-Perez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexandra J. R. Carthey
    • 1
  • Valentina S. A. Mella
    • 1
  • Clare McArthur
    • 1
  • Peter B. Banks
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesThe University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations