Skip to main content
Download PDF

Decision ecology: Foraging and the ecology of animal decision making

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience volume 8, pages 475–484 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

In this article, I review the approach taken by behavioral ecologists to the study of animal foraging behavior and explore connections with general analyses of decision making. I use the example of patch exploitation decisions in this article in order to develop several key points about the properties of naturally occurring foraging decisions. First, I argue that experimental preparations based on binary, mutually exclusive choice are not good models of foraging decisions. Instead, foraging choices have a sequential foreground-background structure, in which one option is in the background of all other options. Second, behavioral ecologists view foraging as a hierarchy of decisions that range from habitat selection to food choice. Finally, data suggest that foraging animals are sensitive to several important trade-offs. These trade-offs include the effects of competitors and group mates, as well as the problem of predator avoidance.

References

  • Abrahams, M. V. (1989). Foraging guppies and the ideal free distribution: The influence of information on patch choice. Ethology, 82, 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrahams, M. V., & Dill, L. M. (1989). A determination of the energetic equivalence of the risk of predation. Ecology, 70, 999–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams-Hunt, M. M., & Jacobs, L. F. (2007). Cognition for foraging. In D. W. Stephens, J. S. Brown, & R. C. Ydenberg (Eds.), Foraging: Behavior and ecology (pp. 105–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainslie, G. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 485–489.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, J. (2005). Animal behavior: An evolutionary approach (8th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, J., & Sherman, P. (1994). The utility of the proximate-ultimate dichotomy in ethology. Ethology, 96, 58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, M., & Kacelnik, A. (1996). Rate currencies and the foraging starling: The fallacy of the averages revisited. Behavioral Ecology, 7, 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging: The marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9, 129–136.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheverton, J., Kacelnik, A., & Krebs, J. R. (1985). Optimal foraging: Constraints and currencies. In B. Hölldobler & M. Lindauer (Eds.), Experimental behavioral ecology and sociobiology (pp. 109–126). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowie, R. J. (1977). Optimal foraging in great tits (Parus major). Nature, 268, 137–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (2006). Neural systems involved in fear and anxiety measured with fear-potentiated startle. American Psychologist, 61, 741–756.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Juricic, E., Kerr, B., Bednekoff, P. A., & Stephens, D. W. (2004). When are two heads better than one? Visual perception and information transfer affect vigilance coordination in foraging groups. Behavioral Ecology, 15, 898–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flombaum, J. I., & Santos, L. R. (2005). Rhesus monkeys attribute perceptions to others. Current Biology, 15, 447–452.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell, S. D., & Lucas, H. L. (1970). On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica, 19, 16–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallistel, C. R. (1994). Foraging for brain stimulation: Toward a neurobiology of computation. Cognition, 50, 151–170.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giraldeau, L.-A., & Kramer, D. L. (1982). The marginal value theorem: A quantitative test using load size variation in a central place forager, the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Animal Behaviour, 30, 1036–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 653–683.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J., Rachlin, H., & Laibson, D. I. (Eds.) (1997). The matching law: Papers in psychology and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killeen, P. R. (1968). On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 263–269.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychological Review, 108, 96–112.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLinn, C. M., & Stephens, D. W. (2006). What makes information valuable? Signal reliability and environmental uncertainty. Animal Behaviour, 71, 1119–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobbs, D., Petrovic, P., Marchant, J. L., Hassabis, D., Weiskopf, N., Seymour, B., et al. (2007). When fear is near: Threat imminence elicits prefrontal-periaqueductal gray shifts in humans. Science, 317, 1079–1083.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonacs, P. (2001). State dependent behavior and the marginal value theorem. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. A. (1978). Searching for mates. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 214–244). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, W. C. (1999). Effects of multiple vertebrate predators on grasshopper habitat selection: Trade-offs due to predation risk, foraging, and thermoregulation. Evolutionary Ecology, 13, 499–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platt, M. L. (2002). Neural correlates of decisions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12, 141–148.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pompilio, L., Kacelnik, A., & Behmer, S. T. (2006). State-dependent learned valuation drives choice in an invertebrate. Science, 311, 1613–1615.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanfey, A. G. (2007). Social decision-making: Insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science, 318, 598–602.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuck-Paim, C., Pompilio, L., & Kacelnik, A. (2004). State-dependent decisions cause apparent violations of rationality in animal choice. PLoS Biology, 2, 2305–2315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, S. (1994). Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: Support for comparative evaluation of foraging options. Animal Behaviour, 48, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, S., Waite, T. A., & Smith, B. H. (2002). Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology, 51, 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, D. F. (2006). Neuroecology. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 167–197.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, D. F., & Mitchell, J. B. (2007). Neuroethology of foraging. In D. W. Stephens, J. S. Brown, & R. C. Ydenberg (Eds.), Foraging: Behavior and ecology (pp. 61–102). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth, S. J. (1998). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. W. (2007). Models of information use. In D. W. Stephens, J. S. Brown, & R. C. Ydenberg (Eds.), Foraging: Behavior and ecology (pp. 31–58). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. W., & Anderson, D. (2001). The adaptive value of preference for immediacy: When shortsighted rules have farsighted consequences. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. W., Brown, J. S., & Ydenberg, R. C. (Eds.) (2007). Foraging: Behavior and ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. W., Kerr, B., & Fernández-Juricic, E. (2004). Impulsiveness without discounting: The ecological rationality hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 2459–2465.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. W., & McLinn, C. M. (2003). Choice and context: Testing a simple short-term choice rule. Animal Behaviour, 66, 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, D. W., & Stevens, J. R. (2001). A simple spatially explicit ideal-free distribution: A model and an experiment. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology, 49, 220–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Precis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 727–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza, T. (1995). Building on the ideal free distribution. Advances in Ecological Research, 26, 253–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite, T. A., & Field, K. L. (2007). Foraging with others: Games social foragers play. In D. W. Stephens, J. S. Brown, & R. C. Ydenberg (Eds.), Foraging: Behavior and ecology (pp. 331–362). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, 55108, Saint Paul, MN

    David W. Stephens

Authors
  1. David W. Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David W. Stephens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stephens, D.W. Decision ecology: Foraging and the ecology of animal decision making. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 8, 475–484 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.4.475

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.4.475

Keywords

  • Travel Time
  • Intertrial Interval
  • Behavioral Ecologist
  • Habitat Choice
  • Rich Habitat