Skip to main content
Log in

Optimal and central-place foraging theory applied to a desert harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex californicus

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Certain predictions of optimal- and central place-foraging theory were tested on the desert harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex californicus. Colonies were offered three different sizes of oat seed and found to maximize net energy intake (ei) over time (t i ) by harvesting the seed sizes with the highest e i /t i rank. Two aspects of t i were measured that were assumed constant in previous studies. The handling components of t i (time required to manipulate the seed and travel time back to the colony with the food) were measured and found to be positively correlated with seed size. The manipulation success rate (the percentage of handled seeds successfully picked up) decreased with increased seed size. These results point out how important it is to measure all parameters of e i /t i rather than to assume constancy with both prey type and foraging distance. The relative abundance of less preferred food types was important in determining the proportion of preferred types in the diet. The food supply of eight colonies was manipulated experimentally over a 25-day period. Four “deprived” colonies were constrained within aluminum enclosures to prevented foraging. The remaining four “satiated” colonies were given food ad libitum. The niche breadths of the treated colonies were then compared to controls, but found not to differ significantly. Seed baits were offered at three distances from the colony to test whether selectivity increased with disance. Contrary to theoretical predictions, all colonies harcested about the same proportion of each seed size at each distance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: Attack strategy of a mantid. Am Nat 110:141–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DW (1978) Experimental tests of the optimal diet in two social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 4:35–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis NB (1977) Prey selection and search strategy of the spotted flycatcher (Muscicapa strata): A field study on optimal foraging. Anim Behav 25:1016–1033

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVita J (1979) Mechanisms of interference and foraging among colonies of the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex californicus in the Mojave desert. Ecology 60:729–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Elner RW, Hughes RN (1978) Energy maximization in the diet of the shorecrab, Carcinus maenas (L). J Anim Ecol 47:103–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 102:385–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1968) Optimal choice in animals. Am Nat 100:611–617

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM, Emlen MJR (1975) Optimal choice in diet: test of a hypothesis. Am Nat 109:427–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Estabrook GF, Dunham AE (1976) Optimal diet as a function of absolute abundance, relative abundance, and relative value of available prey. Am Nat 110:401–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Strategies in herbivory by mammals — role of plant secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Goss-Custard JD (1977a). Optimal foraging and the size selection of worms by redshank Tringa totanus. Anim Behav 25:10–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Goss-Custard JD (1977b) The energetics of prey selection by redshank, Tringa totanus (L.), in relation to prey density. J Anim Ecol 46:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes RN (1979) Optimal diets under the energy maximization premise: the effects of recognition time and learning. Am Nat 113:209–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins SH (1980) A size-distance relation in food selection by beavers. Ecology 61:740–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen CD, Porter SD (1982) Foraging behavior of Pogonomyrmex owyheei in southeast Idaho. Environm Entomol 11:381–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR (1978) Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 23–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Erickson JT, Webber MI, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal prey selection in the Great Tit (Parus major). Anim Behav 25:30–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Stephens DW, Sutherland WJ (1983) Perspectives in optimal foraging. In: Brush AH, Clark GA (eds) Perspectives in ornithology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 165–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacher TE Jr, Willig MR, Mares MA (1982) Food preference as a function of resource abundance with multiple prey types: an experimental analysis of optimal foraging theory. Am Nat 120:297–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessells GM, Stephens DW (1983) Central place foraging: single prey loaders again. Anim Behav 31:238–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKay WP (1981) A comparison of nest phenologies of three species of Pogonomyrmex harvester ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 88:25–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Menge BA (1972) Foraging strategy of a starfish in relation to actual prey availability and environmental predictability. Ecol Monogr 42:25–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse DH (1979) Prey capture by the crab spider Misumena calycina (Araneae: Thomisidae). Oecologia (Berlin) 39:309–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch WW, Avery S, Smyth MEB (1975) Switching in predatory fish. Ecology 56:1094–1106

    Google Scholar 

  • Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DJ, Stairs GR, Mitchell RD (eds) Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH, pp 155–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1974) On the theory of optimal diets. Am Nat 108:59–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GR, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport DJ (1971) Optimization model of food selection. Am Nat 105:575–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport DJ, Turner JE (1977) Economic models in ecology. Science 195:367–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards LJ (1983) Hunger and optimal diet. Am Nat 122:326–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissing SW, Pollock GB (1984) Worker size variability and foraging efficiency in Veromessor pergandei (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:121–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissing SW, Wheeler J (1976) Foraging responses of Veromessor pergandei to changes in seed production. Pan-Pac Entomol 52:63–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:369–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1979) Generality of the size-distance relation in models of optimal feeding. Am Nat 114:902–914

    Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (1979) Optimal diet: the relative importance of the parameters. Am Nat 113:460–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyderman M (1983) Optimal prey selection: Partial selection, delay of reinforcement, and self control. Behav Anal Lett 3:131–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal R, Rholf J (1981) Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamps J, Tanaka S, Krishman VV (1981) The relationship between selectivity and food abundance in a juvenile lizard. Ecology 62:1079–1092

    Google Scholar 

  • Steel R, Torrie J (1960) Principles and produres in statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein RA (1977) Selective predation, optimal foraging, and the predator-prey interaction between fish and crayfish. Ecology 58:1237–1253

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor F (1977) Foraging behavior of ants: experiments with two species of Myrmecine ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:147–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen J (1981) Foraging decisions in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris (L.). Ardea 69:1–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner AK (1982) Optimal foraging by the swallow (Hirundo rustica, L.): prey size selection. Anim Behav 30:862–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington K, Holden L (1979) Optimal foraging: on flower selection on bees. Am Nat 144:179–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis DI (1964) The foraging behavior of the ant Formica fusca. Behaviour 23:150–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE (1974) The fish size, prey size, handling time relation in several sunfish and some implications. J Fish Res Board Can 31:531–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the Bluegill Sunfish (Leponis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Mittlebach GG, Hall DJ (1981) The role of foraging profitability and experience in habitat use by the bluegill sunfish. Ecology 62:116–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitford WG (1976) Foraging behavior of Chihuahuan desert harvester ants. Am Midl Nat 95:455–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitford WG (1978) Foraging in seed-harvester ants Pogonomyrmex spp. Ecology 59:185–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Zach R, Falls JB (1978) Prey selection by captive ovenbirds (Aves: Pauridae). J Anim Ecol 47:929–943

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holder, K., Polis, G.A. Optimal and central-place foraging theory applied to a desert harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex californicus . Oecologia 72, 440–448 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377577

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377577

Key words

Navigation