Advertisement

The Effect of Information on Payoff in Kleptoparasitic Interactions

  • Mark Broom
  • Jan Rychtář
  • David G. Sykes
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 64)

Abstract

We model stealing interactions as a Producer–Scrounger game in an extensive form where one individual, the scrounger, may attempt to steal a valuable item from another, the producer, who may in turn defend it. The population is not homogeneous, but rather the individuals may place a different value on the same resource. The difference in valuation causes the appearance of several informational situations; in this paper we consider three main ones: (1) individuals are aware of their own as well as their opponent’s valuation, (2) individuals are aware only of their own valuation, and (3) individuals are not aware even of their own valuation. We study the effect of information availability on the scrounger’s payoff. We not only show that situation (1) is never worse than (2), but we also demonstrate that situation (3) can be worse than (1) and (2) for some parameters, but can be better than (1) and (2) for other values.

Keywords

Full Information Expected Payoff Partial Information Extensive Form Information Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by NSF grants DMS-0850465 and DBI-0926288, Simons Foundation grant 245400 and UNCG Undergraduate Research Award in Mathematics and Statistics.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnard, C.J., Sibly, R.M.: Producers and scroungers: a general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Anim. Behav. 29(2), 543–550 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broom, M., Luther, R.M., Ruxton, G.D.: Resistance is useless? Extensions to the game theory of kleptoparasitism. Bull. Math. Biol. 66(6), 1645–1658 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broom, M., Ruxton, G.D.: Evolutionarily stable kleptoparasitism: consequences of different prey types. Behav. Ecol. 14(1), 23 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broom, M., Rychtář, J.: The evolution of a kleptoparasitic system under adaptive dynamics. J. Math. Biol. 54(2), 151–177 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broom, M., Rychtář, J.: A game theoretical model of kleptoparasitism with incomplete information. J. Math. Biol. 59(5), 631–649 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broom, M., Rychtář, J.: Kleptoparasitic melees - modelling food stealing featuring contests with multiple individuals. Bull. Math. Biol. 73(3), 683–699 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broom, M., Rychtář, J.: Game-Theoretical Models in Biology. CRC, Boca Raton (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caraco, T., Giraldeau, L.A.: Social foraging: producing and scrounging in a stochastic environment. J. Theor. Biol. 153(4), 559–583 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois, F., Giraldeau, L.A.: Fighting for resources: the economics of defense and appropriation. Ecology 86(1), 3–11 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubois, F., Giraldeau, L.A., Grant, J.W.A.: Resource defense in a group-foraging context. Behav. Ecol. 14(1), 2 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Enquist, M., Leimar, O.: Evolution of fighting behaviour: the effect of variation in resource value. J. Theor. Biol. 127(2), 187–205 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimm, M.P., Klinge, M.: Pike and some aspects of its dependence on vegetation. In: Craig, J.F. (ed.) Pike: Biology and Exploitation, pp. 125–156. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iyengar, E.V.: Kleptoparasitic interactions throughout the animal kingdom and a re-evaluation, based on participant mobility, of the conditions promoting the evolution of kleptoparasitism. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 93(4), 745–762 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeanne, R.L.: Social biology of the neotropical wasp mischocyttarus drewseni. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 144, 63–150 (1972)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kruuk, H.: The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1972)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spear, L.B., Howell, S.N.G., Oedekoven, C.S., Legay, D., Bried, J.: Kleptoparasitism by brown skuas on albatrosses and giant-petrels in the Indian ocean. Auk 116(2), 545–548 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steele, W.K., Hockey, P.A.R.: Factors influencing rate and success of intraspecific kleptoparasitism among kelp gulls (Larus dominicanus). Auk 112(4), 847–859 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Triplet, P., Stillman, R.A., Goss-Custard, J.D.: Prey abundance and the strength of interference in a foraging shorebird. J. Anim. Ecol. 68(2), 254–265 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vickery, W.L., Giraldeau, L.A., Templeton, J.J., Kramer, D.L., Chapman, C.A.: Producers, scroungers and group foraging. Am. Nat. 137(6), 847–863 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsCity University LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsThe University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations