Skip to main content

Consequences of food distribution for optimal searching behavior: an evolutionary model

Abstract

Resource distribution can vary greatly in space and time. Consequently, animals should adjust their searching tactics to such spatio–temporal patterns in accordance with their innate capabilities, or alternatively, they should use a genetically fixed searching tactic that has been evolved in response to the specific pattern of the food they experience. Using a simulation model and a genetic algorithm, we show how optimal searching tactics change as a function of food spatial pattern. Searching tactics for hidden prey can be approximated using the following three components: (1) Extensive search mode (ESM), the type of movement before encountering a food item; (2) Intensive search mode (ISM), the type of movement after encountering a food item; and (3) ISM duration. Both ESM and ISM are characterized by movement tortuosity. We show that searching behavior adaptively changes as a function of food pattern. When food is distributed in a regular pattern, ISM is more directional than ESM, but under a clumped food pattern, ISM is much more tortuous than ESM. It may suggest that animals with larger spectra of searching tactics should experience greater variance or seasonal changes in their food pattern than animals with narrow spectra of searching tactics. Increased forager attack radius diminishes the differences between ESM and ISM, and thus the use of these three components to model searching in animals with higher attack radii is not appropriate. Increased handling time, which is a surrogate of reducing habitat profitability results in longer patch residency time as expected by optimal foraging theory. To conclude, we suggest that using such a combined approach of simulation models and genetic algorithms may improve our understanding of how extrinsic and intrinsic factors interact to influence searching behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Baum KA, Grant WE (2001) Hummingbird foraging behavior in different patch types: simulation of alternative strategies. Ecol Model 137:201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell WJ (1985) Sources of information controlling motor patterns in arthropod local search orientation. J Insect Physiol 31:837–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benhamou S (1992) Efficiency of area-concentrated searching behaviour in a continuous patchy environment. J Theor Biol 159:67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benhamou S (2004) How to reliably estimate the tortuosity of an animal’s path: straightness, sinuosity or fractal dimension? J Theor Biol 229:209–220

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Natan G, Abramsky Z, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2004) Seeds redistribution in sand dunes: a basis for coexistence of two rodent species. Oikos 105:325–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond AB (1980) Optimal foraging in a uniform habitat: the search mechanism of the green lacewing. Anim Behav 28:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom M, Ruxton GD (2005) You can run––or you can hide: optimal strategies for cryptic prey against pursuit predators. Behav Ecol 16:534–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouskila A, Blumstein DT (1992) Rules of thumb for predation hazard assessment: predictions from a dynamic model. Am Nat 139:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MC, Dixon AFG (1984) Foraging behaviour of Coccinellid larvae: duration of intensive search. Entomol Exp Appl 36:133–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Compton SG (2001) Sailing with the wind: dispersal by small flying insects. In: Bullock JM, Kenward RE, Hails RS (eds) Dispersal ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 113–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicke M, Burrough PA (1988) Using fractal dimensions for characterizing tortuosity of animal traits. Physiol Entomol 13:393–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferran A, Dixon AFG (1993) Foraging behaviour of ladybird larvae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 90:383–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine-learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths D (1980) Foraging costs and relative prey size. Am Nat 116:734–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünbaum D (1998) Using spatially explicit models to characterize foraging performance in heterogeneous landscapes. Am Nat 151:97–115

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills T, Brockie PJ, Maricq AV (2004) Dopamine and glutamine control area-restricted search behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Neurosci 24:1217–1225

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iwasa Y, Higashi M (1981) Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am Nat 117:710–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P, Shigesada N (1983) Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56:234–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller EF, Segel LA (1971) Model for chemotaxis. J Theor Biol 30:225–234

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krakauer DC, Rodriguez-Girones MA (1995) Searching and learning in a random environment. J Theor Biol 177:417–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellgren RL, Roper TJ (1986) Spatial learning and discrimination of food patches in the European badger (Meles meles L.). Anim Behav 34:1129–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers LA, Bull JJ (2002) Fighting change with change: adaptive variation in an uncertain world. Trends Ecol Evol 17:551–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell M, Taylor CE (1999) Evolutionary computation: an overview. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 30:593–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motro U, Shmida A (1995) Near-far search: an evolutionary stable foraging strategy. J Theor Biol 173:15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamuta K (1985) Mechanism of the switchover from extensive to area-concentrated search behaviour of the ladybird beetle, Coccintella septempunctata bruckii. J Insect Physiol 31:849–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamuta K (1987) Diel rhythmicity of prey-search activity and its predominance over starvation in the lady beetle, Coccinella septempunctata bruckii. Physiol Entomol 12:91–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolet BA, Mooij WM (2002) Search paths of swans foraging on spatially autocorrelated tubers. J Anim Ecol 71:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovadia O, Ziv Y, Abramsky Z, Pinshow B, Kotler BP (2001) Harvest rates and foraging strategies in Negev Desert gerbils. Behav Ecol 12:219–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME (1998) Scale-dependent foraging and patch choice in fractal environments. Evol Ecol 12:309–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan GM, Buldyrev SV, Havlin S, da Luz MGE, Raposo EP, Stanley HE (1999) Optimizing the success of random searches. Nature 401: 911–914

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ward D, Saltz D (1994) Foraging at different spatial scales: Dorcase gazelles foraging for lilies in the Negev desert. Ecology 75: 48–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movements. Ecology 80:1019–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Simon Benhamou and Tamar Keasar for their instructive comments on previous versions of the manuscript. We would also like to thank Ido Filin for his great help in improving the simulation program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inon Scharf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scharf, I., Kotler, B. & Ovadia, O. Consequences of food distribution for optimal searching behavior: an evolutionary model. Evol Ecol 23, 245–259 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-007-9220-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-007-9220-6

Keywords

  • Area-restricted search
  • Attack radius
  • Foraging
  • Handling time
  • Genetic algorithm
  • Searching tactic