Advertisement

Starlings and Optimal Foraging Theory: Modelling in a Fractal World

  • A. Kacelink
  • I. C. Cuthill

Abstract

Whether the optimality approach to the study of behavior is a respectable scientific theory has often been the subject of debate (Maynard Smith 1978; Gould & Lewontin 1979; Gray this volume; Ollason 1980 and this volume). The argument is partly obscured by the semantic difficulties associated with the use of the term “theory” and its difference from “model” and “hypothesis.” Behavioral ecologists must be concerned with this debate because it is important to establish the relationship between theoretical statements and empirical evidence and to be aware of what is being tested when biological data are compared with theoretical predictions. It is also important to determine the relative advantages of alternative research programs. Differences in outlook between authors belonging to various schools of behavioral research are common. While one occasionally reads statements such as “optimality theory predicts (or fails to predict) the observed results,” thus implying that it is the theory itself that is under experimental test (Mazur 1981; Diamond 1984; Fantino & Abarca 1985; Mellgren & Brown in press; Rashotte in press), evolutionary zoologists interested in behavior usually maintain that optimality itself is not being tested, but rather that specific models derived from the theory are (Maynard Smith 1978; Curio 1983; Kacelnik 1984; Cheverton, Kacelnik & Krebs 1985; Schmid-Hempel, Kacelnik & Houston 1985).

Keywords

Travel Time Delivery Rate Patch Type Optimal Forage Feedback Function 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brooke, M. de L. 1981. How an adult wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) uses its territory when feeding nestlings. Journal of Animal Ecology, 50: 683–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant, D., and Turner, A.K. 1982. Central place foraging by swallows (Hirundinidae): the question of load size. Animal Behaviour, 30: 845–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caraco, T., and Lima, S.L. 1986. Survival, Energy Budgets and Foraging risks. In: Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Volume 6: Foraging (ed. by M. Commons, A. Kacelnik, & S. Shettleworth), in press. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, A., and Moreno, J. 1981. Central place foraging in the wheatear, Oenanthe oenanthe: an experimental test. Journal of Animal Ecology, 50: 917–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9: 129–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheverton, J., Kacelnik, A., and Krebs, J.R. 1985. Optimal Foraging: constraints and currencies. In: Experimental Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (ed. by B. Holldobler, & M. Lindauer), 31:109–126. Fortschritte der Zoologie.Google Scholar
  7. Cowie, R.J. 1977. Optimal foraging in Great Tits (Parus major). Nature, 268: 137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curio, E. 1983. Time-energy budgets and optimization. Experientia, 39: 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuthill, I.C. 1985. Experimental Studies of Optimal Foraging Theory. Unpublished D. Philosophy Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Diamond, P. 1984. Optimal foraging theory tested. Nature, 311: 603–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duhem, P. 1914. La theorie physique, son object, sa structure. 2nd edition. Paris: M. Riviere & Cie. (English translation: 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Emlen, J.M. 1966. The role of time and energy in food preference. American Naturalist, 100: 611–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fantino, E., and Abarca, N. 1985. Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behavior and Brain Science, 8: 315–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giraldeau, L., and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gould, S.J., and Lewontin, R.C. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Procedures of R. Soc. Biology, 205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green, R.F. 1979. Bayesian Birds: A Simple Example of Paten’s Stochastic Model of Optimal Foraging. University of California at Riverside, Technical Report 50.Google Scholar
  17. Green, R.F. 1984. Stopping rules for optimal foragers. American Naturalist, 123: 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harley, C.B. 1981. Learning the evolutionary stable strategy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 89: 611–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houston, A.I., Kacelnik, A., and McNamara, J. 1982. Some learning rules for acquiring information. In: Functional Ontogeny (ed. by D.J. McFarland ), pp. 140–191. Pitman, Boston.Google Scholar
  20. Kacelnik, A. 1984. Central place foraging in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). I. Patch residence time. Journal of Animal Ecology, 53: 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kacelnik, A., and Houston, A.I. 1984. Some effects of energy costs on foraging strategies. Animal Behaviour, 32: 609–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kacelnik, A.,’and Krebs, J.R. 1985. Learning about food distribution. In: Behavioural Ecology: Ecological Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour (ed. by R.M. Sibly & R. Smith ). Blackwell’s Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J.R., and Ens, B. 1986. Foraging in a changing environment: An experiment with starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). In: Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Volume 6: Foraging (ed. by M. Commons. A. Kacelnik, & S. Shettleworth), in press. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Kacelnik, A. 1986. Short term adjustments of parental effort in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Proceedings of the XIX International Ornithological Conference, Ottawa 1986. In press.Google Scholar
  25. Kramer, D.L., and Nowell, W. 1980. Central place foraging in the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Animal Behaviour, 28: 772–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krebs, J.R., Kacelnik, A., and Taylor, P. 1978. Test of optimal sampling by foraging great tits. Nature, 275: 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. Lakatos, I ), pp. 91–195. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lester, N.P. 1984. The feed: feed decision: how goldfish solve the patch depletion problem. Behaviour, 89: 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lima, S.L. 1984. Downy woodpecker foraging behavior: efficient sampling in simple stochastic environments. Ecology, 65: 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lima, S.L. 1985. Sampling behavior of starlings foraging in simple patchy environments. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 16: 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacArthur, R.M., and Pianka, E.R. 1966. On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist, 100: 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York.Google Scholar
  34. Maynard-Smith, J. 1978. Optimization Theory in Evolution. Annual Review of Ecology Systematics, 9: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNamara, J.M. 1982. Optimal patch use in a stochastic environment. Theoretical Population Biology, 21: 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazur, J.M. 1981. Optimization theory fails to predict performance of pigeons in a two-response situation. Science, 214: 823–824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mellgren, R., and Brown, S.W. Environmental Constraints on Optimal Foraging Behavior. In: Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Volume 6: Foraging (ed. by M. Commons, A. Kacelnik, & S. Shettleworth), in press. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Milinski, M. 1984. Competitive resource sharing: an experimental test of a learning rule for ESSs. Animal Behaviour, 32: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Norberg, R.A. 1981. Temporary weight decrease in breeding birds may result in more fledged young. American Naturalist, 118: 838–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oaten, S.A. 1977. Optimal foraging in patches: a case for stochasticity. Theoretical Population Biology, 12: 263–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ollason, J.G. 1980. Learning to forage-optimally? Theoretical Population Biology, 18: 44–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Orians, G.H., and Pearson, N.E. 1979. On the theory of central place foraging. In: Analysis of Ecological Systems (ed. by D.J. Horn, R.D. Mitchell, & G.R. Stairs ), pp. 154–177. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Perrin, J. 1906. La discontinuité de la matiere. Translated by B.B. Mandelbrot, 1983. Revue du mois, 1: 323–344.Google Scholar
  44. Rashotte, M.E., O’Connell, J.M., and Djuric, V.J. 1986. Mechanisms of signal-controlled foraging behavior. In: Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Volume 6: Foraging (ed. by M. Commons, A. Kacelnik, & S. Shettleworth), in press. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. Schmid-Hempel, P., Kacelnik, A., and Houston, A.I. 1985. Honeybees maximize efficiency by not filling their crops. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 17: 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoener, T.W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 2: 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shettleworth, S.J. 1986. Learning and foraging in pigeons. In: Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Volume 6: Foraging (ed. by M. Commons, A. Kacelnik, & S. Shettleworth), in press. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Tinbergen, J.M. 1981. Foraging decisions in starlings. Ardea, 69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Kacelink
    • 1
  • I. C. Cuthill
    • 1
  1. 1.Edward Grey Institute of Field OrnithologyOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations