Population Ecology

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 187–196

The advantage of alternative tactics of prey and predators depends on the spatial pattern of prey and social interactions among predators

Original Article


Individual variation in behavioral strategies is ubiquitous in nature. Yet, explaining how this variation is being maintained remains a challenging task. We use a spatially-explicit individual-based simulation model to evaluate the extent to which the efficiency of an alternative spacing tactic of prey and an alternative search tactic of predators are influenced by the spatial pattern of prey, social interactions among predators (i.e., interference and information sharing) and predator density. In response to predation risk, prey individuals can either spread out or aggregate. We demonstrate that if prey is extremely clumped, spreading out may help when predators share information regarding prey locations and when predators shift to area-restricted search following an encounter with prey. However, dispersion is counter-selected when predators interact by interference, especially under high predator density. When predators search for more randomly distributed prey, interference and information sharing similarly affect the relative advantage of spreading out. Under a clumped prey spatial pattern, predators benefit from shifting their search tactic to an area-restricted search following an encounter with prey. This advantage is moderated as predator density increases and when predators interact either by interference or information sharing. Under a more random prey pattern, information sharing may deteriorate the inferior search tactic even more, compared to interference or no interaction among predators. Our simulation clarifies how interactions among searching predators may affect aggregation behavior of prey, the relative success of alternative search tactics and their potential to invade established populations using some other search or spacing tactics.


Alternative strategies Area-restricted search Dispersion Foraging Frequency-dependent selection Spreading out 

Supplementary material

10144_2011_286_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (270 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 270 kb)


  1. Apaloo J (1997) Revisiting strategic models of evolution: the concept of neighborhood invader strategies. Theor Popul Biol 52:71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard CJ, Sibly RM (1981) Producers and scroungers: a general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Anim Behav 29:543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (1998) Randomness, chaos and confusion in the study of antipredator vigilance. Trends Ecol Evol 13:284–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benhamou S (1992) Efficiency of area-concentrated searching behavior in a continuous patchy environment. J Theor Biol 159:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockmann HJ (2001) The evolution of alternative strategies and tactics. Adv Stud Behav 30:1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connell SD (2000) Is there safety-in-numbers for prey? Oikos 88:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farwell M, McLaughlin RL (2009) Alternative foraging tactics and risk taking in brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis). Behav Ecol 20:913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fitzpatrick BM, Shook K, Izally R (2009) Frequency-dependent selection by wild birds promotes polymorphism in model salamanders. BMC Ecol 9:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Templeton JJ (2002) Potential disadvantages of using socially acquired information. Philos T R Soc B 357:1559–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimm V, Railsback SF (2006) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross MR (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:92–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamblin S, Mathot KJ, Morand-Ferron J, Nocera JJ, Rieucau G, Giraledau L-A (2010) Predator inadvertent social information use favours reduced clumping of its prey. Oikos 119:286–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hancock PA, Milner-Gulland EJ, Keeling MJ (2006) Modelling the many-wrongs principle: the navigational advantages of aggregation in nomadic foragers. J Theor Biol 240:302–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hines AH, Long WC, Terwin JR, Thrush SF (2009) Facilitation, interference, and scale: the spatial distribution of prey patches affects predation rates in an estuarine benthic community. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 385:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ioannou CC, Krause J (2008) Searching for prey: the effect of group size and number. Anim Behav 75:1383–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson CA, Giraldeau L-A, Grant JWA (2006) Intensity of interference affects the distribution of house sparrows, Passer domesticus, at food patches. Anim Behav 71:965–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, NorwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Adv Stud Behav 35:333–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kisdi E, Meszéna G (1995) Life histories with lottery competition in a stochastic environment: ESSs which do not prevail. Theor Popul Biol 47:191–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Manly BFJ (1997) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Maynard Smith J (1989) Evolutionary genetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Motro U, Shmida A (1995) Near-far search: an evolutionary stable foraging strategy. J Theor Biol 173:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakamuta K (1985) Mechanism of the switchover from extensive to area-concentrated search behaviour of the ladybird beetle, Coccinella septempunctata bruckii. J Insect Physiol 31:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nemiroff L, Despland E (2007) Consistent individual differences in the foraging behaviour of forest tent caterpillars (Malacosoma disstria). Can J Zool 85:1117–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nolet BA, Mooij WM (2002) Search paths of swans foraging on spatially autocorrelated tubers. J Anim Ecol 71:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prokopy RJ, Roitberg BD (2001) Joining and avoidance behavior in nonsocial insects. Annu Rev Entomol 45:631–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ranta E, Rita H, Lindstrom K (1993) Competition versus cooperation: success of individuals foraging alone and in groups. Am Nat 142:42–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z (1997) Two gerbils of the Negev: a long-term investigation of optimal habitat and its consequences. Evol Ecol 11:733–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rowland JM, Emlen DJ (2009) Two thresholds, three male forms result in facultative male trimorphism in beetles. Science 323:773–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruxton GD (1996) Effects of the spatial and temporal ordering of events on the behaviour of a simple cellular automaton. Ecol Model 84:311–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruxton GD, Hall SJ, Gurney WSC (1995) Attraction toward feeding conspecifics when food patches are exhaustible. Am Nat 145:653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scharf I, Hollender Y, Subach A, Ovadia O (2008) Effect of spatial pattern and microhabitat on pit construction and relocation in Myrmeleon hyalinus (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) larvae. Ecol Entomol 33:337–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scharf I, Kotler B, Ovadia O (2009) Consequences of food distribution for optimal searching behavior: an evolutionary model. Evol Ecol 23:245–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schenk D, Bersier LF, Bacher S (2005) An experimental test of the nature of predation: neither prey- nor ratio-dependent. J Anim Ecol 74:86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmitz OJ (2001) From interesting details to dynamical relevance: toward more effective use of empirical insights in theory construction. Oikos 94:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sinervo B, Lively CM (1996) The rock-paper-scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature 380:240–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor J (1976) The advantage of spacing out. J Theor Biol 59:485–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tinbergen N, Impekoven M, Franck D (1967) An experiment on spacing-out as a defense against predation. Behaviour 28:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Travis JMJ, Palmer SCF (2005) Spatial processes can determine the relationship between prey encounter rate and prey density. Biol Lett 1:136–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vahl WK, Van der Meer J, Meijer K, Piersma T, Weissing FJ (2007) Interference competition, the spatial distribution of food and free-living foragers. Anim Behav 74:1493–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyJohannes Gutenberg University of MainzMainzGermany
  2. 2.Department of Life SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeershebaIsrael

Personalised recommendations