Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 189, Issue 1, pp 105–110 | Cite as

Can intrinsic foraging efficiency explain dominance status? A test with functional response experiments

  • Alexandra Hartley
  • Adrian M. Shrader
  • Simon Chamaillé-JammesEmail author
Behavioral ecology – original research

Abstract

The functional response describes how food abundance affects the intake rate of foraging individuals, and as such, it can influence a wide range of ecological processes. In social species, dominance status can affect the functional response of competing individuals, but studies conducted in an interference-free context have provided contrasting results on the extent of between-individual variability in functional response. We tested the prediction that individuals intrinsically differ in their functional response, and that these differences could predict body weight and dominance status in social species. We used goats as a model species and performed foraging experiments to assess the functional response of these goats in an interference-free context. Our results show that some individuals are consistently better foragers than others, and these individuals were more likely to be heavier and dominant. Parameters of the functional response are, however, more strongly associated with dominance status than with body weight. We conclude that interference while foraging is not needed to explain body weight differences between dominant and subordinate individuals. We suggest that these differences can emerge from intrinsic differences in foraging efficiency between individuals, which could also allow better foragers to demonstrate greater tenacity during agonistic interactions.

Keywords

Competition Goat Interference Inter-individual variability Hierarchy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Stears for helping with the dominance hierarchy of the goat herd. This research was funded by the CNRS ‘Groupe de Recherche International France-Afrique du Sud’ (SCJ), and the National Research Foundation (Grant 77582: AMS). Comments from A. Nilsson and an anonymous reviewer improved the manuscript.

Author contribution statement

AMS and SCJ designed the study. AH performed the experiments. SCJ analysed the data and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Abrams PA (2000) The evolution of predator–prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 31:79–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arzel C, Guillemain M, Gurd DB, Elmberg J, Fritz H, Arnaud A, Pin C, Bosca F (2007) Experimental functional response and inter-individual variation in foraging rate of teal (Anas crecca). Behav Proc 75:66–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calcagno V, Grognard F, Hamelin FM, Wajnberg É, Mailleret L (2014) The functional response predicts the effect of resource distribution on the optimal movement rate of consumers. Ecol Lett 17:1570–1579.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12379 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dammhahn M, Dingemanse NJ, Niemelä PT, Réale D (2018) Pace-of-life syndromes: a framework for the adaptive integration of behaviour, physiology and life history. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72:62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2473-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dingemanse NJ, Dochtermann NA (2013) Quantifying individual variation in behaviour: mixed-effect modelling approaches. J Anim Ecol 82:39–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Durant D, Fritz H, Blais S, Duncan P (2003) The functional response in three species of herbivorous Anatidae: effects of sward height, body mass and bill size. J Anim Ecol 72:220–231.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00689.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Favre M, Martin JG, Festa-Bianchet M (2008) Determinants and life-history consequences of social dominance in bighorn ewes. Anim Behav 76:1373–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Francis RC (1988) On the relationship between aggression and social dominance. Ethology 78:223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fritz H, Durant D, Guillemain M (2001) Shape and sources of variations of the functional response of wildfowl: an experiment with mallards, Anas platyrhynchos. Oikos 93:488–496.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.930314.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon IJ, Illius AW, Milne JD (1996) Sources of variation in the foraging efficiency of grazing ruminants. Funct Ecol 10:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entom 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalinkat G (2014) Bringing animal personality research into the food web arena. J Anim Ecol 83:1245–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalinkat G, Schneider FD, Digel C, Guill C, Rall BC, Brose U (2013) Body masses, functional responses and predator–prey stability. Ecol Lett 16:1126–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Metcalfe NB, Van Leeuwen TE, Killen SS (2016) Does individual variation in metabolic phenotype predict fish behaviour and performance? J Fish Biol 88:298–321.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12699 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Nilsson PA, Huntingford FA, Armstrong JD (2004) Using the functional response to determine the nature of unequal interference among foragers. Biol Lett 271:334–337.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pelletier F, Clutton-Brock T, Pemberton J, Tuljapurkar S, Coulson T (2007) The evolutionary demography of ecological change: linking trait variation and population growth. Science 315:1571–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Post DM, Conners ME, Goldberg DS (2000) Prey preference by a top predator and the stability of linked food chains. Ecology 81:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  19. Rands SA, Pettifor RA, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G (2006) Social foraging and dominance relationships: the effects of socially mediated interference. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:572–581.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0202-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ranta E, Nuutinen V (1985) Foraging by the smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) on zooplankton: functional responses and diet choice. J Anim Ecol 54:275–293.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Royauté R, Berdal MA, Garrison CR, Dochtermann NA (2018) Paceless life? A meta-analysis of the pace-of-life syndrome hypothesis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72:64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2472-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saether BE (1989) Survival rates in relation to body weight in European birds. Ornis Scand 20:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schröder A, Kalinkat G, Arlinghaus R (2016) Individual variation in functional response parameters is explained by body size but not by behavioural types in a poeciliid fish. Oecologia 182:1129–1140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3701-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Shrader AM, Kotler BP, Brown JS, Kerley GIH (2008) Providing water for goats in arid landscapes: effects on feeding effort with regard to time period, herd size and secondary compounds. Oikos 117:466–472.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16410.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shrader AM, Kerley GIH, Brown JS, Kotler BP (2012) Patch use in free-ranging goats: does a large mammalian herbivore forage like other central place foragers? Ethology 118:967–974.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02090.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Stears K, Kerley GIH, Shrader AM (2014) Group-living herbivores weigh up food availability and dominance status when making patch-joining decisions. PLoS One 9:e109011.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109011 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Stillman RA (1996) Shape of the interference function in a foraging vertebrate. J Anim Ecol 65:416–420.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01116.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toscano BJ, Griffen BD (2014) Trait-mediated functional responses: predator behavioural type mediates prey consumption. J Anim Ecol 83:1469–1477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vahl WK, Lok T, Van der Meer J, Piersma T, Weissing FJ (2005) Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones. Behav Ecol 16:834–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Veiberg V, Loe LE, Mysterud A, Langvatn R, Stenseth NC (2004) Social rank, feeding and winter weight loss in red deer: any evidence of interference competition? Oecologia 138:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vervaecke H, Roden C, de Vries H (2005) Dominance, fatness and fitness in female American bison, Bison bison. Anim Behav 70:763–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Life SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScotsvilleSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Zoology and Entomology, Mammal Research InstituteUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.CEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE, IRDMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations