Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 37–47 | Cite as

Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition

  • Joel S. Brown
Article

Summary

A technique for using patch giving up densities to investigate habitat preferences, predation risk, and interspecific competitive relationships is theoretically analyzed and empirically investigated. Giving up densities, the density of resources within a patch at which an individual ceases foraging, provide considerably more information than simply the amount of resources harvested. The giving up density of a forager, which is behaving optimally, should correspond to a harvest rate that just balances the metabolic costs of foraging, the predation cost of foraging, and the missed opportunity cost of not engaging in alternative activities. In addition, changes in giving up densities in response to climatic factors, predation risk, and missed opportunities can be used to test the model and to examine the consistency of the foragers' behavior. The technique was applied to a community of four Arizonan granivorous rodents (Perognathus amplus, Dipodomys merriami, Ammospermophilus harrisii, and Spermophilus tereticaudus). Aluminum trays filled with 3 grams of millet seeds mixed into 3 liters of sifted soil provided resource patches. The seeds remaining following a night or day of foraging were used to determine the giving up density, and footprints in the sifted sand indicated the identity of the forager. Giving up densities consistently differed in response to forager species, microhabitat (bush versus open), data, and station. The data also provide useful information regarding the relative foraging efficiencies and microhabitat preferences of the coexisting rodent species.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramsky Z (1983) Experiments on seed predation by rodents and ants in the Israeli desert. Oecologia (Berlin) 57:328–332Google Scholar
  2. Baharv D, Rosenzweig ML (1985) Optimal foraging in Dorcas gazelles. J Arid Environ 9: 167–171Google Scholar
  3. Belovsky G (1978) Diet optimization of a generalist herbivore, the moose. Theor Pop Biol 14:105–134Google Scholar
  4. Brown JH (1971) Mechanisms of competitive exclusion between two species of chipmunk. Ecology 52: 305–311Google Scholar
  5. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A, Whitham TG, Bond HW (1981) Competition between hummingbirds and insects for the nectar of two species of shrubs. Southwest Nat 26:133–145Google Scholar
  6. Brown JS (1986) Coexistence on a resource whose abundance varies: a test with desert rodents. Unpubl PhD Diss, Univ Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JS (1988) The role of resource variability in structuring desert nodent communities. In: Morris D, Abramsky Z, Fox B (eds) Patterns in the structure of mammalian communities. Texas Tech Univ Press. Lubbock (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Brown JS, Rosenzweig ML (1986) Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J Theor Biol 123:151–171Google Scholar
  9. Caraco T (1979) Time budgeting and group size: a theory. Ecology 60:611–617Google Scholar
  10. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Pop Biol 9:129–136Google Scholar
  11. Cheverton J, Kacelnik A, Krebs JR (1985) Optimal foraging: constraints and currencies. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds). Experimental behavioral ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MassGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiang AC (1974) Fundamental methods of mathematical economics, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowie RJ (1977) Optimal foraging in the great tits (Parus major). Nature 268:137–139Google Scholar
  14. Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611–617Google Scholar
  15. Feinsinger P (1976) Organization of a tropical guild of nectarivorous birds. Ecol Monogr 46:257–291Google Scholar
  16. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL Jr (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36Google Scholar
  17. Frye RJ, Rosenzweig ML (1980) Clump size selection: a field test with two species of Dipodomys. Oecologia (Berlin) 47:323–327Google Scholar
  18. Grubb TC, Greenwald L (1982) Sparrows and a brushpile — foraging responses to different combinations of predation risk and energy cost. Anim Behav 30:637–640Google Scholar
  19. Hartling LK, Plowright RC (1979) Foraging by bumblebees on patches of artificial flowers: a laboratory study. Can J Zool 57:1866–1870Google Scholar
  20. Heinrich B (1979) Foraging strategies of caterpillars: Leaf damage and possible predator avoidance. Oecologia (Berlin) 42:325–337Google Scholar
  21. Hodges CM (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees-hunting by expectation. Anim Behav 29:1166–1171Google Scholar
  22. Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:41–44Google Scholar
  23. Holt RD, Kotler BP (1987) Short-term apparent competition. Am Nat 130:412–430Google Scholar
  24. Hubbard SF, Cook RM (1978) Optimal foraging by parasitoid wasps. J Anim Ecol 47:593–604Google Scholar
  25. Krebs JR, Ryan JC, Charnov EL (1974) Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging? A study of patch use by chickadees. Anim Behav 22:953–964Google Scholar
  26. Krebs JR, Stephens DW, Sutherland WJ (1983) Perspectives in optimal foraging theory. In: Clark GA, Bush AH (eds) Perspectives in ornithology. Cambridge Univ Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis AR (1980) Patch use by grey squirrels and optimal foraging. Ecology 61:1371–1379Google Scholar
  28. Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency-predation — risk trade-offs in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165Google Scholar
  29. MacArthur R, Pianka E (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609Google Scholar
  30. Mares MA, Rosenzweig ML (1978) Granivory in North and South American desert rodents. Ecology 49:235–241Google Scholar
  31. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1986) The common currency for behavioral decisions. Am Nat 127:358–378Google Scholar
  32. Milinski M (1979) Evolutionarily stable feeding strategies in sticklebacks. Z Tierpsychol 51:36–40Google Scholar
  33. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  34. Mittlebach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386Google Scholar
  35. Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML (1981) Competitors and habitat use. Oikos 37:1–6Google Scholar
  36. Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML, Mitchell W (1985) Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory. Ecology 66:798–807Google Scholar
  37. Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: Testing the marginal value theorem. Am Zool 18:739–752Google Scholar
  38. Pyke GH (1980) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Calculation of net rate of energy intake and optimal patch use. Theor Pop Biol 17:232–246Google Scholar
  39. Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575Google Scholar
  40. Rosenzweig ML (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection. Proceedings of the 1st International Congress of Ecology, pp 401–404Google Scholar
  41. Rosenzweig ML (1979) Optimal habitat selection in two-species competitive systems. Fortschr Zool 25:283–293Google Scholar
  42. Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335Google Scholar
  43. Rosenzweig ML (1985) Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. In: Cody ML (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, New York, pp 517–540Google Scholar
  44. Russell RR, Wilkinson M (1979) Microeconomics. A synthesis of modern and neoclassical theory. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in whitethroated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65:1820–1827Google Scholar
  46. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  47. Schaffer WM, Jensen DB, Hobbs DE, Gurevitch J, Todd JR, Schaffer MV (1979) Competition, foraging energetics, and the cost of sociality in three species of bees. Ecology 60:976–987Google Scholar
  48. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco, CalifGoogle Scholar
  49. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  50. Tilman D (1985) The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am Nat 125:827–852Google Scholar
  51. Townsend CR, Hildrew AG (1980) Foraging in a patchy environment by a predatory net-spinning caddis larva — a test of optimal foraging theory. Occologia (Berlin) 47:219–221Google Scholar
  52. Vance RR (1985) The stable coexistence of two competitors for one resource. Am Nat 126:72–86Google Scholar
  53. Vickery WL (1984) Optimal diet models and rodent food consumption. Anim Behav 32:340–348Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Whitham TG (1977) Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: A last dreg theory. Science 197:593–596Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel S. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations