Oecologia

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 357–364 | Cite as

When carnivores are “full and lazy”

Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Are animals usually hungry and busily looking for food, or do they often meet their energetic and other needs in the 24 h of a day? Focusing on carnivores, I provide evidence for the latter scenario. I develop a model that predicts the minimum food abundance at which a carnivore reaches satiation and is released from time constraints. Literature data from five invertebrate and vertebrate species suggest that food abundances experienced in the field often exceed this threshold. A comparison of energetic demands to kill rates also suggests that carnivores often reach satiation: for the 16 bird and mammal species analyzed, this frequency is 88% (average across species). Because pressure of time would likely lead to trade-offs in time allocation and thus to a nonsatiating food consumption, these results suggest that carnivores are often released from time constraints.

Keywords

Energy-time budgets Functional responses Kill rates Principle of stringency Time constraints 

Supplementary material

442_2006_654_MOESM1_ESM.doc (101 kb)
Kill Rates of Free-Ranging Carnivorous Birds and Mammals Compared to their Demands (DOC 101 kb)

References

  1. Abrams PA (1984) Foraging time optimization and interactions in food webs. Am Nat 124:80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (1990) The effects of adaptive behavior on the type-2 functional response. Ecology 71:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrington DA, Winemiller KO, Loftus WF, Akin S (2002) How often do fishes “run on empty”? Ecology 83:2145–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp G (2003) Group-size effects on vigilance: a search for mechanisms. Behav Processess 63:111–121. DOI 10.1016/s0376–6357(03)00002–0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertram BCR (1978) Living in groups: predators and prey. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 64–96Google Scholar
  6. Brown JS, Kotler BP (2004) Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett 7:999–1014. DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00661.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385-399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunnell FL, Harestad AS (1990) Activity budgets and body weight in mammals: how sloppy can mammals be? Curr Mammal 2:245–305Google Scholar
  9. Caldow RWG, Furness RW (2001) Does Holling’s disc equation explain the functional response of a kleptoparasite? J Anim Ecol 70:650–662. DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2001.00523.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Catania KC, Remple FE (2005) Asymptotic prey profitability drives star-nosed moles to the foraging speed limit. Nature 433:519-522. DOI 10.1038/nature03250 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies J (1985) Evidence for a diurnal horizontal migration in Daphnia hyalina lacustris Sars. Hydrobiologia 120:103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeBlois EM, Leggett WC (1991) Functional response and potential impact of invertebrate predators on benthic fish eggs: analysis of the Calliopius laeviusculus-capelin (Mallotus villosus) predator-prey system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 69:205–216Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Feltham MJ, Davies JM (1996) The daily food requirements of fish-eating birds: getting the sums right. In: Greenstreet SPR, Tasker ML (eds) Aquatic predators and their prey. Fishing News Books, Oxford, pp 53–57Google Scholar
  16. Fortin D, Boyce MS, Merrill EH (2004) Multi-tasking by mammalian herbivores: overlapping processes during foraging. Ecology 85:2312–2322Google Scholar
  17. Fox LR, Murdoch WW (1978) Effects of feeding history on short-term and long-term functional responses in Notonecta hoffmanni. J Anim Ecol 47:945–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber LR, Reichman OJ, Roughgarden J (2004) Food hoarding: future value in optimal foraging decisions. Ecol Model 175:77–85. DOI 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goss-Custard JD, West AD, Yates MG, Caldow RWG, Stillman RA, Bardsley L, Castilla J, Castro M, Dierschke V, Durell SEA le V dit, Eichhorn G, Ens BJ, Exo K-M, Udayangani-Fernando PU, Ferns PN, Hockey PAR, Gill JA, Johnstone I, Kalejta-Summers B, Masero JA, Moreiro F, Nagarajan RV, Owens IPF, Pacheco C, Perez-Hurtado A, Rogers D, Scheiffarth G, Sitters H, Sutherland WJ, Triplet P, Worrall DH, Zharikov Y, Zwartz L, Pettifor RA (2006) Intake rates and the functional response in shorebirds (Charadriiformes) eating macro-invertebrates. Biol Rev 81:501–529. DOI 10.1017/s1464793106007093 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbers J (1981) Time resources and laziness in animals. Oecologia 49:252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hohberg K (2003) Soil nematode fauna of afforested mine sites: genera distribution, trophic structure and functional guilds. Appl Soil Ecol 22:113–126. DOI 10.1016/s0929–1393(02)00135-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holling CS (1966) The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem Entomol Soc Can 48:1–86Google Scholar
  24. Huey RB, Pianka ER, Vitt LJ (2001) How often do lizards “run on empty”? Ecology 82:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Humphreys WF (1979) Production and respiration in animal populations. J Anim Ecol 48:427–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeschke JM, Tollrian R (2005a) Predicting herbivore feeding times. Ethology 111:187–206. DOI10.1111/j.1439-0310.2004.01052.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeschke JM, Tollrian R (2005b) Effects of predator confusion on functional responses. Oikos 111:547–555. DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2005.14118.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2002) Predator functional responses: discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecol Monogr 72:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2004) Consumer-food systems: why type I functional responses are exclusive to filter feeders. Biol Rev 79:337–349. DOI 10.1017/s1464793103006286 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2006) Time and energy constraints: reply to Nolet & Klaassen (2005). Oikos 114:553–554. DOI 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14975.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karasov WH, McWilliams SR (2005) Digestive constraints in mammalian and avian ecology. In: Starck JM, Wang T (eds) Physiological and ecological adaptations to feeding in vertebrates. Science Publishers, Enfield, pp 87–112Google Scholar
  32. Korpimäki E, Norrdahl K (1991) Numerical and functional responses of kestrels, short-eared owls, and long-eared owls to vole densities. Ecology 72:814–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kvam OV, Kleiven OT (1995) Diel horizontal migration and swarm formation in Daphnia in response to Chaoborus. Hydrobiologia 307:177–184. DOI 10.1007/bf00032010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649-659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malone BJ, McQueen DJ (1983) Horizontal patchiness in zooplankton populations in two Ontario kettle lakes. Hydrobiologia 99:101–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1994) The effect of a change in foraging options on intake rate and predation rate. Am Nat 144:978–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College (1999) The global population dynamics database.http://www.sw.ic.ac.uk/cpb/cpb/gpdd.html
  38. Nielsen OK (1999) Gyrfalcon predation on ptarmigan: numerical and functional responses. J Anim Ecol 68:1034–1050. DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00351.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Owen-Smith N, Novellie P (1982) What should a clever ungulate eat? Am Nat 119:151–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Piersma T, Drent J (2003) Phenotypic flexibility and the evolution of organismal design. Trends Ecol Evol 18:228–233. DOI 10.1016/s0169-5347(03)00036-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Real LA (1977) The kinetics of functional response. Am Nat 111:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salamolard M, Butet A, Leroux A, Bretagnolle V (2000) Responses of an avian predator to variations in prey density at a temperate latitude. Ecology 81:2428–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmitz OJ, Cohon JL, Rothley KD, Beckerman AP (1998) Reconciling variability and optimal behaviour using multiple criteria in optimization models. Evol Ecol 12:73–94. DOI 10.1023/a:1006559007590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sih A, Ziemba R, Harding KC (2000) New insights on how temporal variation in predation risk shapes prey behavior. Trends Ecol Evol 15:3–4. DOI 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01766-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Starck JM, Beese K (2001) Structural flexibility of the intestine of Burmese python in response to feeding. J Exp Biol 204:325–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  49. van Gils JA, Piersma T (2004) Digestively constrained predators evade the cost of interference competition. J Anim Ecol 73:386–398. DOI 10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00812.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Gils JA, de Rooij SR, van Belle J, van der Meer J, Dekinga A, Piersma T, Drent R (2005a) Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. I. Prey choice. J Anim Ecol 74:105–119. DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00903.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Gils JA, Dekinga A, Spaans B, Vahl WK, Piersma T (2005b) Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. II. Patch choice and length of working day. J Anim Ecol 74:120–130. DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00904.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Orsdol KG (1986) Feeding behaviour and food intake of lions in Rwenzori National Park, Uganda. In: Miller SD, Everitt DD (eds) Cats of the world: biology, conservation and management. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, pp 377–388Google Scholar
  53. Weiner J (2000) Activity patterns and metabolism. In: Halle S, Stenseth NC (eds) Activity patterns in small mammals. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–65Google Scholar
  54. Whelan CJ, Brown JS (2005) Optimal foraging and gut constraints: reconciling two schools of thought. Oikos 110:481–496. DOI 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whelan CJ, Schmidt KA (2006) Food acquisition, processing, and digestion. In: Stephens D, Brown JS, Ydenberg R (eds) Foraging. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (in press)Google Scholar
  56. Willmer P, Stone G, Johnston I (2000) Environmental physiology of animals. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Yamauchi A, Yamamura N (2005) Effects of defense evolution and diet choice on population dynamics in a one-predator-two-prey system. Ecology 86:2513–2524Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Evolutionary Ecology, Department Biology IILudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  2. 2.Laboratory of Ecological and Evolutionary Dynamics, Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Evolutionary Ecology Unit, Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations