Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How good must models and data be in ecology?

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Linear programming models of diet selection (LP) have been criticized as being too sensitive to variations in parameter values that have not been or may not be able to be measured with a high degree of precision (small standard error). Therefore, LP's predictions have been questioned, even though the predicted diet choices agree very well with observations in 400 published tests. The philosophical and statistical aspects of this criticism of LP are reviewed in light of the ability to test any nontrivial ecological theory. It is argued that measures of error in field data may not meet simple statistical definitions, and thereby, may make sensitivity analyses that use the error measures overly conservative. Furthermore, the important issue in testing ecological theory may not be the statistical confidence in a single test, but whether or not the theory withstands repeated tests.

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

References

  • Ball J (1994) Prey choice of omnivorous canvasbacks: imperfectly optimal ducks? Oikos 70:233–244

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1981) Food plant selection by a generalist herbivore: the moose. Ecology 62:1020–1030

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1984a) Herbivore optimal foraging: a comparative test of three models. Am Nat 124:97–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1984b) Summer diet optimization by beaver. Am Midl Nat 111:209–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1984c) Snowshoe hare optimal foraging and its implications for population dynamics. Theor Popul Biol 25:235–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1986a) Optimal foraging and community structure: implications for a guild of generalist grassland herbivores. Oecologia 70:35–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1986b) Generalist herbivore foraging and its role in competitive interactions. Am Zool 25:51–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1987a) Hunter-gatherer foraging: a linear programming approach. J Anthropol Archaeol 6:29–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1987b) Foraging and optimal body size: an overview, new data and a test of alternative models. J Theor Biol, 129:257–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1987c) An optimal foraging model for wild herbivores. In: Rose M (ed) Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores, University of Queensland: Herbivore nutrition research (Occasional publication). Australian Society of Animal Production, Brisbane, Australia, pp 227–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1990a) A reply to Hobbs. In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (NATO ASI series, vol G 20). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 415–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1990b) How important are nutrient constraints in optimal foraging models or are spatial/temporal factors more important In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (NATO ASI series, vol G 20). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 255–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1991) Insights for caribou/reindeer management using optimal foraging theory. Rangifer (Special Issue) 7:7–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE, Schmitz OJ (1991) Mammalian herbivore optimal foraging and the role of plant defenses. In: Palo RT, Robbins CT (eds) Plant chemical defense and mammalian herbivory. CRC Press, Cincinnati, pp 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE, Schmitz OJ (1993) Owen-Smith's evaluation of herbivore foraging models: what is constraining? Evol Ecol 7:525–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE, Schmitz OJ (in press) Plant defenses and optimal foraging by mammalian herbivores. J Mammal

  • Belovsky GE, Slade JB (1987) The role of plant distributions of herbivore diet choice: a comparison of wild and domestic species. In: Rose M (ed) Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores, University of Queensland: Herbivore nutrition research (Occasional publication). Australian Society of Animal Production, Brisbane, Australia, pp 87–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE, Slade JB (submitted) Grasshopper foraging behavior. II. experimental studies of diet selection. Eyol Ecol

  • Belovsky GE, Ritchie ME, Moorehead J (1989) Foraging in complex environments: when prey availability varies over time and space. Theor Popul Biol 36:144–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE, Schmitz OJ, Slade JB, Dawson TJ (1991) Effects of spines and thorns on australian arid zone herbivores of different body masses. Oecologia 88:521–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE, Schmitz OJ, Slade JB, Dawson TJ, McLeod S (submitted) Foraging strategies of arid Australian herbivores: body size, evolutionary history and conservation. Ecol Appl

  • Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Doucet CM, Fryxell JM (1993) The effect of nutritional quality on forage preference by beavers. Oikos 67:201–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards G (1993) Ontogenetic and seasonal changes in diet in the yellow-bellied marmot: an explanation from optimal foraging theory. In: Augee ML (ed) Abstracts of the Sixth International Theriological Congress. Sydney, Australia, School of Biological Sciences, UNSW, Kensington, Australia, p 342

    Google Scholar 

  • Forchhammer M, Boomsma JJ (in press) Foraging strategies and seasonal diet optimization of muskoxen in West Greenland. J Anim Ecol

  • Hobbs NT (1990) Diet selection by generalist herbivores: a test of the linear programming model. In: Hughes RN (ed) Behavioural mechanisms of food selection (NATO ASI series, vol G 20). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 395–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggard DJ (1994) A linear programming model of herbivore foraging: imprecise, yet successful? Oecologia 100:470–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasov WH (1985) Nutrient constraints in the feeding ecology of an omnivore in a seasonal environment. Oecologia 66:280–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonacs P, Dill LM (1993) Is satisficing an alternative to optimal foraging theory? Oikos 67:371–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith N (1993) Evaluating optimal diet models for an African browsing ruminant, the kudu: how constraining are the assumed constraints? Evol Ecol 7:499–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith N (1994) Foraging responses of kudus to seasonal changes in food resources: elasticity in constraints. Ecology 75:1050–1062

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME (1988) Individual variation in the ability of Columbian ground squirrels to select an optimal diet. Evol Ecol 2:232–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME (1990) Optimal foraging and fitness in Columbian ground squirrels. Oecologia 82:56–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME, Belovsky GE (1990) Sociality of Columbian ground squirrels in relation to their seasonal energy intake. Oecologia 83:495–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ (1990) Management implications of foraging theory: evaluating deer supplemental feeding. J Wildl Manage 54:522–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Hik DS, Sinclair ARE (1992) Plant chemical defense and twig selection by snowshoe hare: an optimal foraging perspective. Oikos 65:295–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical methods, 6th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Spalinger DE (1980) Mule deer habitat evaluation based upon nutritional modeling. Master's Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno

  • Spalinger DE, Hobbs NT (1992) Mechanisms of foraging in mammalian herbivores: new models of functional response. Am Nat 140:325–348

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis J (1982) A method for the statistical analysis of time-energy budgets. Ecology 63:19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Vulink JT, Drost HJ (1991) A causal analysis of diet composition in free-ranging cattle in reed-dominated vegetation. Oecologia 88:167–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward D (1992) The role of satisficing in foraging theory. Oikos 63:312–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward D (1993) Foraging theory, like all other fields of science, needs multiple working hypotheses. Oikos 67:376–378

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecology Center and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, 84322-5210, Logan, UT, USA

    Gary E. Belovsky

Authors
  1. Gary E. Belovsky
    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

Belovsky, G.E. How good must models and data be in ecology?. Oecologia 100, 475–480 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317870

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317870

Key words

Search

Navigation