When an opportunistic predator is looking for a given type of prey and encounters another one from different species, it tries to utilize this random opportunity. We characterize the optimal levels of this opportunism in the framework of stochastic models for the two prey-one predator case. We consider the spatial dispersal of preys and the optimal diet choice of predator as well. We show that when both preys have no handling time, the total opportunism provides maximal gain of energy for the predator. When handling times differ with prey, we find a conditional optimal behavior: for small density of both prey species the predator prefers the more valuable one and is entirely opportunistic. However, when the density of the more valuable prey is higher than that of the other species, then the predator prefers the first one and intentionally neglects the other. Furthermore, when the density of the less valuable prey is high and that of the other one is small, then predator will look for the less valuable prey and is therefore totally opportunistic. We demonstrate that prey preference is remunerative whenever the advantage of a proper prey preference is larger than the average cost of missed prey preference. We also propose a dynamics which explicitly contains two sides of shared predation: apparent mutualism and apparent competition, and we give conditions when the rare prey goes extinct.
Anderson, J.J. 2010. Ratio- and predator-dependent functional forms for predators optimal foraging in patches. Am. Nat. 175:240–249.
Abrams, P., Holt, R.D. and Roth, J.D. 1998. Apparent competition or apparent mutualism? Shared predation when populations cycle. Ecology 78:201–212.
Berec, L,. 1999. Mixed encounters, limited perception and optimal foraging. Bull. Math. Biol. 1:1–28.
Berec, L. and Krivan, V. 2000. A mechanistic model for partial preference. Theor. Pop. Biol. 58:279–289.
Bélisle, C. and Cresswell, J. 1997. The effects of limited memory capacity on foraging behavior. Theor. Pop. Biol. 52:78–90.
Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor. Pop. Biol. 9:129–136.
Cressman, R. and Garay, J. 2003. Evolutionary stability in Lotka-Volterra system. J. Theor. Biol. 222: 233–245.
Cressman, R., and Garay J. 2010. The effect of opportunistic and intentional predators on herding behaviour of prey. Ecology, accepted.
Hayward M.A. and Kerrley G.I.H. 2005. Prey preference of the lions (Panthera leo). J. Zool. Lond. 267: 309–322.
Hebblewhite M., and Pletscher D.H. 2002. Effects of elk group size on predation by wolves. Can. J. Zool. 80: 800–809.
Holling, C.S. 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Entomol. 91:293–320.
Huggard, D.J. 1993a. Prey selectivity of wolves in Banff National Park. I. Prey species. Can. J. Zool. 71: 130–139.
Huggard D.J. 1993b. Prey selectivity of wolfs in Banff National Park. II: Age, sex and condition of elk. Can. J. Zool. 71: 140–147.
Jeschke, J.M., Kopp, M. and Tollrian R. 2002. Predator functional responses: discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecol. Monog. 72:95–112.
Krivan, V. 2003. Competitive co-existence caused by adaptive predators. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:1163–1182.
Kunkel, K.E., Pletscher, D. H., Boyd, D. K., Ream, R.R. and Fairchild, M. W. 2004. Factors correlated with foraging behaviour of wolves in and near Glacier National Park, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 68: 167–178.
Lankford, T.E. and Targett, T.E. 1997. Selective predation by juvenile weakfish: Post-consumptive constraints on energy maximization and growth. Ecology 78:1049–1061.
Marten, G.G. 1972. An optimization equation for predation. Ecology 54:92–101.
McNamara J.M. and Houston, A.I. 1987. Partial preference and foraging. Anim. Behav. 35:1084–1099.
Nachman, G. 2006. A functional response model of a predator population foraging in a patch habitat. J. Anim. Ecol. 75:948–958.
O’Donoghue, M., Boutin, S., Krebs, C.J. and Hoffer, E.J. 1997. Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos 80:150–162.
O’Donoghue, M., Boutin, S., Krebs, C.J., Zuleta, G., Murray, D.L. and Hoffer, E.J. 1998a. Behaviour responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos 82:169–183.
O’Donoghue, M., Boutin, S., Krebs, C.J., Zuleta, G., Murray, D.L. and Hoffer, E.J. 1998b. Functional responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecology 79:1193–1208.
Prugh, L.R. 2005. Coyote prey selection and community stability during a decline in food supply. Oikos 110:253–264.
Schaller G.B. 1972. The Serengeti Lion. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
Stephans D.W. and Krebs J.R. 1986. Foraging theory. Monographs in Behaviour and Ecology. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Tschanz, B., Bersier, L-F. and Bacher, S. 2007. Functional responses: A question of alternative prey and predator density. Ecology 88:1300–1308.
Electronic supplementary material
About this article
Cite this article
Garay, J., Móri, T.F. When is predator’s opportunism remunerative?. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 11, 160–170 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.11.2010.2.4
- Apparent competition
- Apparent mutualism
- Functional response
- Handling time
- Holling functional responses
- Intentional predator
- Opportunistic predator
- Optimal foraging
- Prey preference
- Wald’s equation