Advertisement

Conspecific presence and microhabitat features influence foraging decisions across ontogeny in a facultatively social mammal

  • Chelsea A. Ortiz
  • Erika L. Pendleton
  • Kate Lee Newcomb
  • Jennifer E. SmithEmail author
Featured Student Research Paper

Abstract

Natural selection is expected to favor the evolution of threat-sensitive behaviors that permit individuals to adaptively detect and respond to danger. However, because time allocated to vigilance reduces the amount of time that is available for energy acquisition, foraging in the face of predation can impose an evolutionary trade-off. Optimal foraging theory therefore predicts that risk-taking decisions should vary in response to perceived levels of threat. Our goal here is to disentangle the relative contributions of conspecific presence, ecological factors, and individual traits on two measures of vigilance in free-living California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi). This facultatively social and ecologically flexible rodent represents a major source of prey in California grasslands. Over a 5-year period, we collected 386 focal animal surveys on 156 free-living individuals residing at two colony sites. Individuals were most vigilant in conditions for which predation risk was highest, such as when foraging alone and on flat areas with low vegetative cover. In general, juvenile foragers were more gregarious but less vigilant than adult foragers. Although all animals—regardless of age or sex—generally decreased their intensity of vigilance as group size increased, only adults decreased their time allocated to vigilance in response to conspecific presence. Thus, grouping consistently buffered the costs of foraging for risk-averse adults, but the benefits of conspecific presence were less salient for juveniles. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of context in shaping foraging decisions and offer insights into the suite of factors mediating decision-making in socially and ecologically variable environments.

Significance statement

Animals face trade-offs when foraging in the face of predation, but the capacity for individuals to respond appropriately to subtle changes in context-dependent threats remains poorly understood. We studied antipredator vigilance by the California ground squirrel, a flexible species that may forage alone or in small groups of various sizes and in habitats that vary in their protective value from predators and the ease at which prey may detect predators. Although adults are more sensitive to changes in group size, all animals detected context-dependent danger to some extent. Our findings offer insights into the multiple factors that prey respond to when making foraging decisions, suggesting that animals possess the ability to integrate disparate sources of information about danger to optimize energy gain.

Keywords

Dilution effect Group-living Ontogeny Optimal foraging theory Vigilance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Joseph Miller, Doug Bell, and the rest of the staff at the East Bay Regional Parks for allowing us to conduct research. We are also grateful to the numerous members of Team Squirrel for contributing to data collection for this study. Finally, we thank Ted Stankowich, Guy Beauchamp, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Jill Barrett Research Program at Mills College (to CAO, ELP, KLN, JES). A Graduate Research Fellowship to CAO and a Research Opportunity Award (DEB grant 1456730) from the National Science Foundation (NSF) also supported this work. Finally, grants from the Animal Behavior Society (Diversity Fund Award), the Contra Costa Fish and Wildlife Committee (Propagation Fund), the W.M. Keck Foundation (Undergraduate Education Program), and Mills College (Sandra Greer Grant for Professional Development) supported this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All methods were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee at Mills College and consistent with guidelines of the American Society of Mammologists for the use of wild mammals in research (Sikes and Gannon 2016). We conducted this work with permission from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and East Bay Parks.

References

  1. Arenz CL, Leger DW (2000) Antipredator vigilance of juvenile and adult thirteen-lined ground squirrels and the role of nutritional need. Anim Behav 59:535–541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayon RE, Putman BJ, Clark RW (2017) Recent encounters with rattlesnakes enhance ground squirrel responsiveness to predator cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:149Google Scholar
  3. Bachman GC (1993) The effect of body condition on the trade-off between vigilance and foraging in Belding’s ground squirrels. Anim Behav 46:233–244Google Scholar
  4. Bakker VJ (2006) Microhabitat features influence the movements of red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) on unfamiliar ground. J Mammal 87(1):124–130Google Scholar
  5. Banks MS, Sprague WW, Schmoll J, Parnell JA, Love GD (2015) Why do animal eyes have pupils of different shapes? Sci Adv 1:e1500391PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv 1406:5823Google Scholar
  7. Beauchamp G (2008) What is the magnitude of the group-size effect on vigilance? Behav Ecol 19:1361–1368Google Scholar
  8. Beauchamp G (2015) Animal vigilance: monitoring predators and competitors. Academic Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Beauchamp G (2018) The effect of age on vigilance: a longitudinal study with a precocial species. Behaviour 155:1011–1024Google Scholar
  10. Bednekoff PA, Blumstein DT (2009) Peripheral obstructions influence marmot vigilance: integrating observational and experimental results. Behav Ecol 20:1111–1117Google Scholar
  11. Bertram BCR (1978) Living in groups: predators and prey. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 1st edn. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 64–96Google Scholar
  12. Biardi JE, Coss RG, Smith DG (1999) California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) blood sera inhibits crotalid venom proteolytic activity. Toxicon 38:713–721Google Scholar
  13. Biardi JE, Chien DC, Coss RG (2005) California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) defenses against rattlesnake venom digestive and hemostatic toxins. J Chem Ecol 31:2501–2518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Blumstein DT, Daniel JC (2007) Quantifying behavior the JWatcher way. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  15. Blumstein DT, Runyan A, Seymour M, Nicodemus A, Ozgul A, Ransler F, Im S, Stark T, Zugmeyer C, Daniel JC (2004) Locomotor ability and wariness in yellow-bellied marmots. Ethology 110:615–634Google Scholar
  16. Boellstorff DE, Owings DH (1995) Home range, population structure, and spatial organization of California ground squirrels. J Mammal 76:551–561Google Scholar
  17. Boggs CL (1992) Resource allocation: exploring connections between foraging and life history. Funct Ecol 6:508–518Google Scholar
  18. Boland CR (2003) An experimental test of predator detection rates using groups of free-living emus. Ethology 109:209–222Google Scholar
  19. Byrom AE, Karels TJ, Krebs CJ, Boonstra R (2000) Experimental manipulation of predation and food supply of arctic ground squirrels in the boreal forest. Can J Zool 78:1309–1319Google Scholar
  20. Caro TM (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Childress MJ, Lung MA (2003) Predation risk, gender and the group size effect: does elk vigilance depend upon the behaviour of conspecifics? Anim Behav 66:389–398Google Scholar
  22. Chmura HE, Wey TW, Blumstein DT (2016) Assessing the sensitivity of foraging and vigilance to internal state and environmental variables in yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:1901–1910Google Scholar
  23. Clutton-Brock T (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Cords M (1990) Vigilance and mixed-species association of some East African forest monkeys. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:297–300Google Scholar
  25. Coss RG (1991) Context and animal behavior III: the relationship between early development and evolutionary persistence of ground squirrel antisnake behavior. Ecol Psychol 3:277–315Google Scholar
  26. Cowlishaw G (1997) Trade-offs between foraging and predation risk determine habitat use in a desert baboon population. Anim Behav 53:667–686Google Scholar
  27. Creel S, Winnie J, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Creel M (2005) Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86:3387–3397Google Scholar
  28. Creel S, Christianson D, Liley S, Winnie JA (2007) Predation risk affects reproductive physiology and demography of elk. Science 315:960–960PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Dall SR, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Desy EA, Batzli GO, Liu J (1990) Effects of food and predation on behaviour of prairie voles: a field experiment. Oikos 58:159–168Google Scholar
  31. Dill LM (1987) Animal decision making and its ecological consequences: the future of aquatic ecology and behaviour. Can J Zool 65:803–811Google Scholar
  32. Dimond S, Lazarus J (1974) The problem of vigilance in animal life. Brain Behav Evol 9:60–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Elgar MA (1989) Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev 64:13–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Embar K, Raveh A, Burns D, Kotler BP (2014) To dare or not to dare? Risk management by owls in a predator–prey foraging game. Oecologia 175:825–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Fairbanks B, Dobson FS (2007) Mechanisms of the group-size effect on vigilance in Columbian ground squirrels: dilution versus detection. Anim Behav 73:115–123Google Scholar
  37. Favreau FR, Goldizen AW, Pays O (2010) Interactions among social monitoring, anti-predator vigilance and group size in eastern grey kangaroos. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2089–2095Google Scholar
  38. Favreau FR, Pays O, Fritz H, Goulard M, Best EC, Goldizen AW (2015) Predators, food and social context shape the types of vigilance exhibited by kangaroos. Anim Behav 99:109–121Google Scholar
  39. FitzGibbon CD (1989) A cost to individuals with reduced vigilance in groups of Thomson’s gazelles hunted by cheetahs. Anim Behav 37:508–510Google Scholar
  40. Grinnell J (1918) Natural history of the ground squirrels of California. California State Printing Office, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  41. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hanson MT, Coss RG (1997) Age differences in the response of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) to avian and mammalian predators. J Comp Psychol 111:174–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hanson MT, Coss RG (2001) Age differences in arousal and vigilance in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Dev Psychobiol 39:199–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Helfman GS (1989) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish-trumpetfish interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:47–58Google Scholar
  45. Hirsch BT (2002) Social monitoring and vigilance behavior in brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:458–464Google Scholar
  46. Holekamp KE, Nunes S (1989) Seasonal variation in body weight, fat, and behavior of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Can J Zool 67:1425–1433Google Scholar
  47. Hollén LI, Manser MB (2006) Ontogeny of alarm call responses in meerkats, Suricata suricatta: the roles of age, sex and nearby conspecifics. Anim Behav 72:1345–1353Google Scholar
  48. Kacelnik A, Bateson M (1996) Risky theories—the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am Zool 36:402–434Google Scholar
  49. Koprowski JL (2002) Handling tree squirrels with a safe and efficient restraint. Wildlife Soc B 706:101–103Google Scholar
  50. Kutsukake N (2006) The context and quality of social relationships affect vigilance behaviour in wild chimpanzees. Ethology 112:581–591Google Scholar
  51. Lea AJ, Blumstein DT (2011) Age and sex influence marmot antipredator behavior during periods of heightened risk. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1525–1533PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Leger DW, Owings DH (1978) Responses to alarm calls by California ground squirrels: effects of call structure and maternal status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:177–186Google Scholar
  53. Leger DW, Owings DH, Coss RG (1983) Behavioral ecology of time allocation in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi): microhabitat effects. J Comp Psychol 97:283–291Google Scholar
  54. Li Z, Jiang Z (2008) Group size effect on vigilance: evidence from Tibetan gazelle in Upper Buha River, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Behav Process 78:25–28Google Scholar
  55. Li C, Jiang Z, Li L, Li Z, Fang H, Li C, Beauchamp G (2012) Effects of reproductive status, social rank, sex and group size on vigilance patterns in Przewalski’s gazelle. PLoS One 7:e32607PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Lima SL (1985) Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators: a trade-off in the black-capped chickadee. Oecologia 66:60–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640Google Scholar
  59. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency-predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165Google Scholar
  60. Longland WS, Price MV (1991) Direct observations of owls and heteromyid rodents: can predation risk explain microhabitat use? Ecology 72:2261–2273Google Scholar
  61. Loughry WJ, McDonough CM (1989) Calling and vigilance in California ground squirrels: age, sex and seasonal differences in responses to calls. Am Midl Nat 121:312–321Google Scholar
  62. Lung MA, Childress MJ (2006) The influence of conspecifics and predation risk on the vigilance of elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park. Behav Ecol 18:12–20Google Scholar
  63. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1992) Risk-sensitive foraging: a review of the theory. Bull Math Biol 54:355–378Google Scholar
  64. Metcalfe NB, Furness RW (1984) Changing priorities: the effect of pre-migratory fattening on the trade-off between foraging and vigilance. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:203–206Google Scholar
  65. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  66. Nunes S, Holekamp KE (1996) Mass and fat influence the timing of natal dispersal in Belding’s ground squirrels. J Mammal 77:807–817Google Scholar
  67. Nunes S, Duniec TR, Schweppe SA, Holekamp KE (1999) Energetic and endocrine mediation of natal dispersal behavior in Belding’s ground squirrels. Horm Behav 35:113–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Olson RS, Haley PB, Dyer FC, Adami C (2015) Exploring the evolution of a trade-off between vigilance and foraging in group-living organisms. R Soc Open Sci 2:150135PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Owings DH, Coss RG (1977) Snake mobbing by California ground squirrels: adaptive variation and ontogeny. Behaviour 62:50–68Google Scholar
  70. Owings DH, Coss RG (1991) Context and animal behavior: I. Introduction and review of theoretical issues. Ecol Psychol 3:1–9Google Scholar
  71. Owings DH, Borchert M, Virginia R (1977) The behaviour of California ground squirrels. Anim Behav 25:221–230Google Scholar
  72. Pangle WM, Holekamp KE (2010) Functions of vigilance behaviour in a social carnivore, the spotted hyaena, Crocuta crocuta. Anim Behav 80:257–267Google Scholar
  73. Parker GA, Smith JM (1990) Optimality theory in evolutionary biology. Nature 348:27–33Google Scholar
  74. Pays O, Jarman PJ (2008) Does sex affect both individual and collective vigilance in social mammalian herbivores: the case of the eastern grey kangaroo? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:757–767Google Scholar
  75. Pays O, Renaud PC, Loisel P, Petit M, Gerard JF, Jarman PJ (2007) Prey synchronize their vigilant behaviour with other group members. Phil Trans R Soc B 274:1287–1291Google Scholar
  76. Poran NS, Coss DT (1990) Development of antisnake defenses in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi): I. Behavioral and immunological relationships. Behaviour 112:222–245Google Scholar
  77. Poran NS, Coss RG, Benjamini ELI (1987) Resistance of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) to the venom of the northern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis oreganus): a study of adaptive variation. Toxicon 25:767–777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Powolny T, Bretagnolle V, Aguilar A, Eraud C (2014) Sex-related differences in the trade-off between foraging and vigilance in a granivorous forager. PLoS One 9:e101598PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Putman BJ, Coss RG, Clark RW (2015) The ontogeny of antipredator behavior: age differences in California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) at multiple stages of rattlesnake encounters. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1447–1457Google Scholar
  81. R Development Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  82. Reboreda JC, Fernandez GJ (1997) Sexual, seasonal and group size differences in the allocation of time between vigilance and feeding in the greater rhea Rhea americana. Ethology 103:198–207Google Scholar
  83. Roberts G (1996) Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim Behav 51:1077–1086Google Scholar
  84. Ruckstuhl KE, Festa-Bianchet M, Jorgenson JT (2003) Bite rates in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): effects of season, age, sex and reproductive status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:167–173Google Scholar
  85. Schooley RL, Sharpe PB, Horne BV (1996) Can shrub cover increase predation risk for a desert rodent? Can J Zool 74:157–163Google Scholar
  86. Sharpe PB, Van Horne B (1998) Influence of habitat on behavior of Townsend’s ground squirrels (Spermophilus townsendii). J Mammal 79:906–918Google Scholar
  87. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Sikes RS, Gannon WL (2016) Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mammal 97:663–688PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. Smith JE (2014) Hamilton’s legacy: kinship, cooperation and social tolerance in mammalian groups. Anim Behav 92:291–304Google Scholar
  90. Smith JE, Batzli GE (2006) Dispersal and mortality of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) in fragmented landscapes: a field experiment. Oikos 112:209–217Google Scholar
  91. Smith JE, Long DJ, Russel ID, Newcomb KL, Muñoz VD (2016) Otospermophilus beecheyi (Rodentia: Sciuridae). Mamm Spec 48:1–18Google Scholar
  92. Smith JE, Gamboa DA, Spencer JM, Travenick SJ, Ortiz CA, Hunter RD, Sih A (2018) Split between two worlds: automated sensing reveals links between above- and belowground social networks in a free-living mammal. Phil Trans R Soc B 373:20170249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Stamps JA (2007) Growth-mortality tradeoffs and ‘personality traits’ in animals. Ecol Lett 10:355–363Google Scholar
  94. Stephens DW (2008) Decision ecology: foraging and the ecology of animal decision making. Cogn Affect Behav Ne 8:475–484Google Scholar
  95. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  96. Tchabovsky AV, Krasnov B, Khokhlova IS, Shenbrot GI (2001) The effect of vegetation cover on vigilance and foraging tactics in the fat sand rat Psammomys obesus. J Ethol 19:105–113Google Scholar
  97. Treves A (2000) Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation. Anim Behav 60:711–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Verdolin JL (2006) Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:457–464Google Scholar
  99. Watson M, Aebischer NJ, Cresswell W (2007) Vigilance and fitness in grey partridges Perdix perdix: the effects of group size and foraging-vigilance trade-offs on predation mortality. J Anim Ecol 76:211–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1993) Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am Nat 142:242–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Whiteside MA, Langley EJ, Madden JR (2016) Males and females differentially adjust vigilance levels as group size increases: effect on optimal group size. Anim Behav 118:11–18Google Scholar
  102. Xia C, Xu W, Yang W, Blank D, Qiao J, Liu W (2011) Seasonal and sexual variation in vigilance behavior of goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) in western China. J Ethol 29:443–451Google Scholar
  103. Yáber MC, Herrera EA (1994) Vigilance, group size and social status in capybaras. Anim Behav 48:1301–1307Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentMills CollegeOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of California DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations