Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predator Switching and the Interpretation of Animal Choice Behavior: The Case for Constrained Optimization

  • Conference paper
Behavioural Mechanisms of Food Selection

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((ASIG,volume 20))

Abstract

The past decade has seen considerable debate over the choice of methodology appropriate for the analysis of animal behavior. Unquestionably, the dominant approach uses a variety of optimization methods as a basis for modeling behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Belovsky GE (1978) Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theor Pop Biol 14: 105–134.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown L (1981) Patterns of female choice in mottled sculpins (Cottidae, Teleostei). Anim Behav 29: 375–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caraco T, Lima S (1985) Foraging juncos: interaction of reward mean and variability. Anim Behav 33: 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caraco T, Martindale S, Whitham TS (1980) An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim Behav 2: 820–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter R, Dill L (1989) Why are bumblebees risk-sensitive foragers. Behav Ecol Sociobiol (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins M (1971) Perceptual changes in chicks: another look at the ‘search image’ concept. Anim Behav 19: 566–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins M (1971) Shifts of ‘attention’ in chicks during feeding. Anim Behav 19: 575–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellner S, Real L (1989) Optimal foraging models for stochastic environments: are we missing the point? Comments Theor Biol (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1973) Ecology: an evolutionary approach. Addison-Wesley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher-Piette E (1935). Histoire d’une mouliere. Bull Biol 69: 154–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Getty T (1985) Discriminability and the sigmoid functional response: how optimal foragers could stabilize model-mimic complexes. Am Nat 125: 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getty T, Krebs JR (1985) Lagging partial preferences for cryptic prey: a signal detection analysis of great tit foraging. Am Nat 125: 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould F (1988) Genetics of pairwise and multispecies plant-herbivore coevolution. In Spencer K (ed) Chemical Mediation of Coevolution. Pages 13–55. Academic Press New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green RF (1980) Bayesian birds: a simple example of Oaten’s stochastic model of optimal foraging. Theor Pop Biol 18: 244–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RF (1984) Stopping rules for optimal foragers. Am Nat 12: 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1987) Search images not proven: a reappraisal of recent evidence. Anim Behav 35: 1838–1845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1989) Search image versus search rate: a reply to Lawrence. Anim Behav 37: 160–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1989) Search image versus search rate: two different ways to enhance prey capture. Anim Behav 37: 163–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harder LD, Real LA (1987) Why axe bumblees risk averse? Ecology 68: 1104–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey JD (1981) Economics in disequilibrium. New York University Press New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Canad Entomol 91: 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis KL (1989) In search of a hypothetical construct: a reply to Guilford and Dawkins. Anim Behav 37: 162–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM (1984) Imperfectly optimal animals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15: 61–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston AI, McNamara JM (1985) A general theory of central place foraging for single-prey loaders. Theor Pop Biol 28: 233–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7: 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janetos AC, Cole BJ (1981) Imperfectly optimal animals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9: 203–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik A, Krebs JR (1985) Learning to exploit patchily distributed foods. In Sibley RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioral Ecology. Pages 189–205. Blackwells Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1982) The psychology of preferences. Sci Amer 246:160– 173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR (1974) Behavioral aspects of predation. In Bateson PB, Klopfer P (eds) Perspectives in Ethology. Pages 73–111. Plenum New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanczos C (1966) The variational principles of mechanics. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence ES (1989) Why blackbirds overlook cryptic prey: search rate or search image? Anim Beh 37: 157–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence ES, Allen JA (1983) On the term ‘search image.’ Oikos 40: 313–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman SA, McCall JJ (1976) The econonmics of job search: a survey. Econ Inquiry 14: 155–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangel M, Clark CW (1988) Dynamic modeling in behavioral ecology. Princeton University Press Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovitz H (1956) The optimization of quadratic function subject to linear constraint. Nav Res Logistics Quart 3: 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markovitz H (1959) Portfolio selection. Wiley New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall JJ (1970) Economics of information and job search. Q J Econ 84: 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna CJ (1985) Uncertainty and the labor market. St. Martin’s Press New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1986) The common currency for behavioral decisions. Am Nat 127: 358–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott J, Real LA, Silverfine E (1985) The effect of nectar variance on bumblebee patterns of movement and potential gene dispersal. Oikos 46: 333–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietrewicz AT, Kamil AC (1981) Search images and the detection of cryptic prey: an operant approach. In Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging Behavior. Pages 311– 331. New York Garland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullium HR (1975) Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. Am Nat 109: 765–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH, Pullium HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52: 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapport DJ (1981) Foraging behavior of Stentor coeruleus: a microeconomic interpretation. In Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging Behavior. Pages 77–83. Garland New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Real LA (1981) Uncertainty and pollinator-plant interactions: the foraging behavior of bees and wasps on artifical flowers. Ecology 62: 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Real LA (1983) Microbehavior and macrostructure in pollinator-plant interactions. In Real LA (ed) Pollination biology. Pages 287–304. Academic Press New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Real LA (1987) Objective benefit versus subjective perception in the theory of risk-sensitive foraging. Am Nat 130: 399–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Real LA (1989) Sequential search theory and mate choice I. Models of single sex discrimination. Am Nat (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Real LA, Caraco T (1986) Risk and foraging in stochastic environments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17: 371–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Real LA, Ott JR, Silverfine E (1982) On the trade-off between the mean and variance in foraging: effect of spatial distribution and color preference. Ecology 63: 1617–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regelman K (1985) A remark on the theory of risk-sensitive foraging. J Theor Biol 110: 217–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagan H (1969) Introduction to the calculus of variations. McGraw-Hill New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schotter A, Braunstein YM (1980). Economic search: an experimental study. Econ Inquiry 19: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry D, Schacter DL (1987) The evolution of multiple memory systems. Psych Rev 94: 439–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Pscyhol Rev 63: 129–138.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Paton SR (1986) How constant is the constant of risk-aversion? Anim Behav 34: 1659–1667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen L (1960) The natural control of insects in pine woods I. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by songbirds. Arch Neerland Zool 13: 265–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington KD (1989) Are bumblebees risk-sensitive? It’s a matter of choice, (manuscript).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunderle JM, Cotto-Navarro Z (1988) Constant vs. variable risk-aversion in foraging bananaquits. Ecology 69: 1434–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7617, USA

    Leslie A. Real

Authors
  1. Leslie A. Real
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Functional and Evolutionary Biology School of Biological Sciences, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK

    Roger N. Hughes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Real, L.A. (1990). Predator Switching and the Interpretation of Animal Choice Behavior: The Case for Constrained Optimization. In: Hughes, R.N. (eds) Behavioural Mechanisms of Food Selection. NATO ASI Series, vol 20. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75118-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75118-9_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-75120-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-75118-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation