Oecologia

, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp 512–518 | Cite as

Testing values of crested porcupine habitats by experimental food patches

  • Joel S. Brown
  • Philip U. Alkon
Original Papers

Summary

We established depletable, artificial food patches in three habitats used by Indian crested porcupines (Hystrix indica) in a desert biome, and measured the number of food items remaining (i.e., “giving up density”=GUD) following nightly foraging bouts. Porcupines discriminated between resource types (peanuts vs. garbanzo beans), and exhibited clear habitat preferences in the face of uniform resource availability in time and space. Lowest GUD's (=lowest foraging costs) were in the habitat of densest cover, and during dark (little or no moon) nights. The results indicated a high sensitivity to predation risk. Crested porcupines behaved as expected of optimal foragers, and appear to be excellent subjects for further field experiments using the GUD approach.

Key words

Habitat selection Foraging behavior Predation costs Desert porcupines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alkon PU, Olsvig-Whittaker L (1989) Crested porcupine digs in Negev habitats: patterns of density, size, and longevity. J Arid Environ 17: 255–266Google Scholar
  2. Alkon PU, Saltz D (1985) Potatoes and the nutritional ecology of crested porcupines (Hystrix indica) in a desert biome. J Appl Ecol 22: 727–737Google Scholar
  3. Alkon PU, Saltz D (1988) Influence of season and moonlight on temporal-activity patterns of Indian crested porcupines (Hystrix indica). J Mammal 69: 71–80Google Scholar
  4. Alkon PU, Degen AA, Cohen A, Pollack H (1986) Seasonal energy requirements and water intakes of Indian crested porcupines (Hystrix indica) in captivity. J Mammal 67: 333–342Google Scholar
  5. Blair WF (1943) Activities of the Chihuahua deer-mouse in relation to light intensity. J Wild Mgmt 7: 92–97Google Scholar
  6. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23: 27–43Google Scholar
  7. Brown JS (1989) Desert rodent community structure: A test of four mechanisms of coexistence. Ecol Monogr 59: 1–20Google Scholar
  8. Brown JS, Mitchell WA (1989) Diet selection on depletable resources. Oikos 54: 33–43Google Scholar
  9. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Smith RJ, Wirtz WO II (1988) The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76: 408–415Google Scholar
  10. Brownlee KA (1965) Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering, 2nd Edition. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Butynski TM (1984) Nocturnal ecology of the spring hare, Pedetes capensis, in Botswana. Afr J Ecol 22: 7–22Google Scholar
  12. Caraco T (1979) Time budgeting and group size: a theory. Ecology 60: 611–617Google Scholar
  13. Hay ME, Renaud PE, Fenical W (1988) Large mobile versus small sedentary herbivores and their resistance to seaweed chemical defenses. Oecologia 75: 246–252Google Scholar
  14. Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9: 41–44Google Scholar
  15. Kotler BP (1984a) Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology 65: 689–701Google Scholar
  16. Kotler BP (1984b) Harvesting rates and predatory risk in desert rodents: a comparison of two communities on different continents. J Mammal 65: 91–96Google Scholar
  17. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Smith RJ, Wirtz WO II (1988) The effects of morphology and body size on rates of owl predation on desert rodents. Oikos 53: 145–152Google Scholar
  18. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging efficiency-predation risk tradeoff in the gray squirrel. Anim Behav 33: 155–165Google Scholar
  19. Lockard RB, Owings DH (1974a) Moon-related surface activity of bannertali (Dipodomys spectabilis) and Fresno (D. nitratoides) kangaroo rats. Anim Behav 22: 262–273Google Scholar
  20. Lockard RB, Owings DH (1974b) Seasonal variation in moonlight avoidance by bannertail kangaroo rats. J Mammal 55: 189–193Google Scholar
  21. Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML, Mitchell W (1985) Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory. Ecology 66: 798–807Google Scholar
  22. Price MV, Waser NW, Bass TA (1984) Effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by desert rodents. J Mammal 65: 353–356Google Scholar
  23. Saltz D, Alkon PU (1989) On the spatial behaviour of Indian crested porcupines. J Zool Lond 217: 255–266Google Scholar
  24. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd Edition. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Steinberg PD (1988) Effects of quantitative and qualitative variation in phenolic compounds on feeding in three species of marine invertebrate herbivores. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 120: 221–237Google Scholar
  26. Valone TJ, Brown JS (1989) Measuring patch assessment abilities of desert granivores. Ecology 70: 1800–1810Google Scholar
  27. Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittlebach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64: 1540–1548Google Scholar
  28. Wilson DS (1976) Deducing the energy available in the environment: an application of optimal foraging theory. Biotropica 8: 96–103Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel S. Brown
    • 1
  • Philip U. Alkon
    • 1
  1. 1.Mitrani Center for Desert Ecology, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert ResearchBen-Gurion University of the NegevIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of IllinoisChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations