Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A general framework for understanding the effects of variability and interruptions on foraging behaviour

  • Published:
Acta Biotheoretica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A general framework for analysing the effects of variability and the effects of interruptions on foraging is presented. The animal is characterised by its level of energetic reserves, x. We consider behaviour over a period of time [0,T]. A terminal reward function R(x) determines the expected future reproductive success of an animal with reserves x at time T. For any state x at a time in the period, we give the animal a choice between various options and then constrain it to follow a background strategy. The best option is the one that maximizes expected future reproductive success. Using this framework, we show that sensitivity to variability in amount of energy gained is logically distinct from sensitivity to variability in the time at which food is obtained. We also show that incorporating interruptions results in both a preference for variability in time and a preference for a reward followed by a delay as opposed to the same delay before the reward.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barnard, C.J., and Brown, C.A.J. (1985). Risk-sensitivity in foraging common shrews (Sorex araneus L.). -Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16: 161–164.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barnard, C.J., and Brown, C.A.J. (1985). Competition affects risk-sensitivity in foraging shrews. - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16: 379–382.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barnard, C. J., Brown, C. A. J., Houston, A. T., and McNamara, J.M. (1985). Risk-sensitive foraging in common shrews: an interruption model and the effects of mean and variance in reward rate. - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18: 139–146.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Battalio, R.C., Kagel, J.H., and MacDonald, D.N. (1985). Animals' choices over uncertain outcomes: some initial experimental results. - Amer. Econ. Rev. 75: 597–613.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bookstaber, R., and Langsam, J. (1985). On the optimality of coarse behavior rules. - J. theor. Biol. 116: 161–193.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caraco, T. (1980). On foraging time allocation in a stochastic environment. - Ecology 61: 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caraco, T. (1981). Energy budgets, risk and foraging preferences in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8: 213–217.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Caraco, T. (1982). Aspects of risk-aversion in foraging white-crowned sparrows. - Anim. Behav. 30: 719–727.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Caraco, T. (1983). White-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys) foraging preferences in a risky environment. -Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12: 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. Caraco, T., and Lima, S.L. (in press). Survivorship, energy budgets and foraging risk. - In M.L. Commons, A. Kacelnik and S.J. Shettleworth, eds., Quantitative analyses of behavior, vol. 6. Foraging. - New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  12. Caraco, T., Martindale, S., and Whittam, T.S. (1980). An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. - Anim. Behav. 28: 820–830.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Charnov, E.L. (1973). Optimal foraging - some theoretical explorations. - Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington.

  14. Charnov, E.L. (1976). Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid. - Am. Nat. 110: 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Charnov, E.L. (1976). Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. - Theor. Pop. Biol. 9: 129–136.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clark, C.W., and Mangel, M. (in press). Unified foraging theory. - Ecology.

  17. Davison, M.C. (1969). Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules.- J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 12: 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Davison, M.C. (1972). Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules: number of component intervals. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 17: 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dunn, R., and Fantino, E. (1982). Choice and the relative immediacy of reinforcement.- J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 38: 321–326.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Herrnstein, R.J. (1964). A periodicity as a factor in choice. - J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 7: 179–182.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Houston, A.I., Kacelnik, A., and McNamara, J.M. (1982). Some learning rules for acquiring information. - In D.J. McFarland, ed., Functional ontogeny, 140–191. - London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Houston, A.I., and McNamara, J.M. (1982). A sequential approach to risk-taking. - Anim. Behav. 30: 1260–1261.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Houston, A.I., and McNamara, J.M. (1985). The choice of two prey types that minimizes the probability of starvation. - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17: 135–141.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Houston, A.I., and McNamara, J.M. (1985). The variability of behaviour and constrained optimization. - J. theor. Biol. 112: 265–273.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Killeen, P. (1968). On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. - J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 11: 263–269.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lea, S.E.G. (1979). Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon. Optimal and non-optimal aspects of choice. -Anim. Behav. 27: 875–886.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lea, S.E.G. (1981). Correlation and contiguity in foraging behaviour. In P. Harzem and M.D. Zeiler, eds., Predictability, correlation and contiguity, 355–406. - Chicester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Levanthal, A. M., Morrell, R. F., Morgan, E. J., and Perkins, C.C. (1959). The relation between mean reward and mean reinforcement. - J. Exp. Psych. 57: 284–287.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Logan, F.A. (1965). Decision-making by rats: uncertain outcome choices. - J. Comp. Physiol. Psych. 59: 246–251.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Logan, F.A. (1965). Decision-making by rats: delay versus amount of reward. - J. Comp. Physiol. Psych. 59: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Logue, A.W., and Mazur, J.E. (1981). Maintenance of self-control acquired through a fading procedure: follow-up on Mazure and Logue (1978). - Behav. Anal. Lett. 1: 131–137.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Logue, A.W., Smith, M.E., and Rachlin, H. (1985). Sensitivity of pigeons to pre-reinforcement and postreinforcement delay. - Anim. Learn. Behav. 13: 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mazur, J.E., and Logue, A.W. (1978). Choice in a “selfcontrol” paradigm: effects of a fading procedure. -J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 30: 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McDiarmid, C.G., and Rilling, M.E. (1965). Reinforcement delay and reinforcement rate as determinants of schedule preference. - Psychon Sc. 2: 195–196.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McNamara, J.M., and Houston, A.I. (1980). The application of statistical decision theory to animal behaviour. -J. theor. Biol. 85: 673–690.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McNamara, J.M., and Houston, A.I. (1982). Short-term behaviour and life-time fitness. In D.J. McFarland, ed., Functional ontogeny, 60–87. London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  37. McNamara, J.M., and Houston, A.I. (1986).The common currency for behavioral decisions.- Am. Nat. 127: 358–378.

    Google Scholar 

  38. McNamara, J.M., and Houston, A.I. (in press). Partial preferences and foraging. - Anim. Behav.

  39. Oster, G.F., and Wilson, E.O. (1978). Caste and ecology in the social insects. - Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pubols, B.H. (1962). Constant versus variable delay of reinforcement. - J. Comp. Physiol. Psych. 55: 52–56.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pyke, G.H. (1984). Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. - Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 523–575.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Real, L.A. (1980). Fitness, uncertainty, and the role of diversification in evolution and behavior.- Am. Nat. 115: 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Real, L.A. (1981). Uncertainty and pollinator-plant interactions: the foraging behavior of bees and wasps on artificial flowers. - Ecology 62: 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Real, L.A., Ott, J., and Silverfine, E. (1982). On the trade off between the mean and the variance in foraging: an experimental analysis with bumblebees. - Ecology 63: 1617–1623.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shull, R.L., Spear, D.J., and Bryson, A.E. (1981). Delay or rate of food delivery as a determiner of response rate. - J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 35: 129–143.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Staddon, J.E.R.S., and Innis, N.K. (1966). Preference for fixed vs. variable amounts of reward. - Psychon. Sc. 4: 193–194.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stephens, D.W. (1981). The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. - Anim. Behav. 29: 628–629.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Stephens, D.W., and Charnov, E.L. (1982). Optimal foraging: some simple stochastic models. - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10: 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Waddington, K.D., Allen, T., and Heinrich, B. (1981). Floral preferences of bumblebees (Bombuz edwardsii) in relation to intermittent versus continuous rewards. - Anim. Behav. 29: 779–784.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wunderle, J.M. Jr., and O'Brien, T.G. (1985). Risk aversion in hand-reared bananaquits. - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 17: 371–380.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Young, J.S. (1981). Discrete-trial choice in pigeons: effects of reinforcer magnitude. - J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 35: 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, England

    John M. McNamara

  2. Edward Grey Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, England

    Alasdair I. Houston

Authors
  1. John M. McNamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alasdair I. Houston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McNamara, J.M., Houston, A.I. A general framework for understanding the effects of variability and interruptions on foraging behaviour. Acta Biotheor 36, 3–22 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00159228

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00159228

Keywords

Search

Navigation