Skip to main content
Log in

To dare or not to dare? Risk management by owls in a predator–prey foraging game

  • Behavioral ecology - Original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a foraging game, predators must catch elusive prey while avoiding injury. Predators manage their hunting success with behavioral tools such as habitat selection, time allocation, and perhaps daring—the willingness to risk injury to increase hunting success. A predator’s level of daring should be state dependent: the hungrier it is, the more it should be willing to risk injury to better capture prey. We ask, in a foraging game, will a hungry predator be more willing to risk injury while hunting? We performed an experiment in an outdoor vivarium in which barn owls (Tyto alba) were allowed to hunt Allenby’s gerbils (Gerbillus andersoni allenbyi) from a choice of safe and risky patches. Owls were either well fed or hungry, representing the high and low state, respectively. We quantified the owls’ patch use behavior. We predicted that hungry owls would be more daring and allocate more time to the risky patches. Owls preferred to hunt in the safe patches. This indicates that owls manage risk of injury by avoiding the risky patches. Hungry owls doubled their attacks on gerbils, but directed the added effort mostly toward the safe patch and the safer, open areas in the risky patch. Thus, owls dared by performing a risky action—the attack maneuver—more times, but only in the safest places—the open areas. We conclude that daring can be used to manage risk of injury and owls implement it strategically, in ways we did not foresee, to minimize risk of injury while maximizing hunting success.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann J, Redig P (1997) Surgical repair of elbow luxation in raptors. J Avian Med Surg 11:247–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamec RE, Starkadamec C, Livingston KE (1980) The development of predatory aggression and defense in the domestic cat (felis-catus).III. Effects on development of hunger between 180 and 365 days of age. Behav Neural Biol 30:435–447. doi:10.1016/S0163-1047(80)91274-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altwegg R (2003) Hungry predators render predator-avoidance behavior in tadpoles ineffective. Oikos 100:311–316. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12206.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basuony M, Saleh M, Riad A, Fathy W (2005) Food composition and feeding ecology of the red fox Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758) in Egypt. Egypt J Biol 7:96–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Tal O, Kotler BP (2010) State of emergency: behavior of gerbils is affected by the hunger state of their predators. Ecology 91:593–600. doi:10.1890/09-0112.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2009) Look before you leap: is risk of injury a foraging cost? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1821–1827. doi:10.1007/s00265-009-0809-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2010) Complex state-dependent games between owls and gerbils. Ecol Lett 13:302–310. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01447.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley JE, Marzluff JM (2003) Rodents as nest predators: influences on predatory behavior and consequences to nesting birds. AUK 120:1180–1187. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2003)120[1180:RANPIO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47. doi:10.1007/BF00395696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evolut Ecol Res 1:49–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Kotler BP (2004) Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett 7:999–1014. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00661.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Laundre JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mamm 80:385–399. doi:10.2307/1383287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Kotler BP, Bouskila A (2001) Ecology of fear: foraging games between predators and prey with pulsed resources. Ann Zool Fennici 38:71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL, Orians GH, Hyatt K (1976) Ecological implications of resource depression. Am Nat 110:247–259. doi:10.1086/283062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csermely D, Berte L, Camoni R (1998) Prey killing by Eurasian Kestrels: the role of the foot and the significance of bill and talons. J Avian Biol 29:10–16. doi:10.2307/3677335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dall SRX, Kotler BP, Bouskila A (2001) Attention, apprehension, and gerbils searching in patches. Ann Zool Fennica 38:15–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Damsgard B, Dill LM (1998) Risk-taking behavior in weight-compensating coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Behav Ecol 9:26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embar K, Kotler BP, Mukherjee S (2011) Risk management in optimal foragers: the effect of sightlines and predator type on patch use, time allocation, and vigilance in gerbils. Oikos 120:1657–1666. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19278.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Embar K, Raveh A, Hoffman I, Kotler BP (2014) Predator facilitation or interference: a game of vipers and owls. Oecologia 174:1301–1309. doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2760-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godin JGJ, Crossman SL (1994) Hunger-dependent predator inspection and foraging behaviors in the threespine stickleback (gasterosteus-aculeatus) under predation risk. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:359–366. doi:10.1007/BF00197006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant Gilchrist H, Gaston JA, Smith JNM (1998) Wind and prey nest sites as foraging constraints on an avian predator, the Glaucous Gull. Ecology 79:2403–2414. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2403:WAPNSA]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Henschel P, O’Brien J, Hofmeyr M, Balme G, Kerley GIH (2006a) Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus). J Zool 270:298–313. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00139.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Hofmeyr M, O’Brien J, Kerley GIH (2006b) Prey preferences of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) (Felidae: carnivora): morphological limitations or the need to capture rapidly consumable prey before kleptoparasites arrive? J Zool 270:615–627. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00184.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt DW, Layne EA (2008) Eye injuries in long-eared owls (Asio otus): prevalence and survival. J Raptor Res 42:243–247. doi:10.3356/JRR-07-42.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juliana JRS, Kotler BP, Brown JS, Mukherjee S, Bouskila A (2011) The foraging response of gerbils to a gradient of owl numbers. Evol Ecol Res 13:869–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman MJ, Varley N, Smith DW, Stahler DR, MacNulty DR, Boyce MS (2007) Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. Ecol Lett 10:690–700. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP (1992) Behavioral resource depression and decaying perceived risk of predation in two species of coexisting gerbils. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:239–244. doi:10.1007/BF00166708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS (1990) Rates of seed harvest by two species of gerbiline rodents. J Mamm 71:591–596. doi:10.2307/1381798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hasson O (1991) Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 72:2249–2260. doi:10.2307/1941575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Dall SRX, Gresser S, Ganey D, Bouskila A (2002) Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: temporal dynamics of resource depletion and apprehension in gerbils. Evol Ecol Res 4:495–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Bouskila A (2004) Apprehension and time allocation in gerbils: the effects of predatory risk and energetic state. Ecology 85:917–922. doi:10.1890/03-3002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Mukherjee S, Berger-Tal O, Bouskila A (2010) Moonlight avoidance in gerbils reveals a sophisticated interplay among time allocation, vigilance and state-dependent foraging. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 277:1469–1474. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kullberg C (1995) Strategy of the pygmy owl while hunting avian and mammalian prey. Ornis Fennica 72:72–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Laroche RK, Kock AA, Dill LM, Oosthuize WH (2008) Running the gauntlet: a predator-prey game between sharks and two age classes of seals. Anim Behav 76:1901–1917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao JS, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Singer FJ, Vales DJ, Vore JM, Merrill EH (2005) Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. J Wildl Manag 69:1691–1707. doi:10.1002/jwmg.422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty R, Southwick CH (1981) Food deprivation: effects on the predatory behavior of Southern Grasshopper Mice Onychomys torridus. Aggress Behav 7:123–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Mech LD, McIntyre RT, Smith DW (2004) Unusual behavior by Bison, Bison bison, toward Elk, Cervus elaphus, and Wolves, Canis lupus. Can Field-nat 118:115–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris DW (1987) Ecological scale and habitat use. Ecology 68:362–369. doi:10.2307/1939267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee S, Heithaus MR (2013) Dangerous prey and daring predators: a review. Biol Rev 88:550–563. doi:10.1111/brv.12014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perlman Y, Tsurim I (2008) Daring, risk assessment and body condition interactions in steppe buzzards Buteo buteo vulpinus. J Avian Biol 39:226–228. doi:10.1111/j.2008.0908-8857.04251.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polsky RH (1975) Hunger, prey feeding and predatory aggression. Behav Biol 13:81–93. doi:10.1016/S0091-6773(75)90823-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JL, Cresswell W (2004) Predator hunting behaviour and prey vulnerability. J Anim Ecol 73:143–154. doi:10.1046/j.0021-8790.2004.00787.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raveh A, Kotler BP, Abramsky Z, Krasnov BR (2011) Driven to distraction: detecting the hidden costs of flea parasitism through foraging behaviour in gerbils. Ecol Lett 14:47–51. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01549.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roth TC, Lima SL (2007) Use of prey hotspots by an avian predator: purposeful unpredictability? Am Nat 169:264–273. doi:10.1086/510605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (1992) Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs. Am Nat 139:1052–1069. doi:10.1086/285372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evolut 9:350–355. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01437-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunde P (2002) Starvation mortality and body condition of Goshawks Accipiter gentilis along a latitudinal gradient in Norway. IBIS 144:301–310. doi:10.1046/j.1474-919X.2002.00050.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunde P (2005) Predators control post-fledging mortality in tawny owls, Strix aluco. Oikos 110:461–472. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.14069.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thouzeau C, Duchamp C, Handrich Y (1999) Energy metabolism and body temperature of barn owls fasting in the cold. Physiol Biochem Zool 72:170–178. doi:10.1086/316659

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vijayan S, Kotler BP, Mukherjee S, Brown JS, Bouskila A (2007) Influence of cover on foraging behavior of Negev desert gerbils. Basic Appl Dryland Res 1:51–66 (Arbeitskreises Wüstenökologie (Germany))

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker SE, Rypstra AL (2003) Hungry spiders aren’t afraid of the big bad wolf spider. J Arachnol 31:425–427. doi:10.1636/S02-63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wignall AE, Taylor PW (2009) Alternative predatory tactics of an araneophagic assassin bug (Stenolemus bituberus). Acta ethologica 12:23–27. doi:10.1007/s10211-008-0049-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (grant no. 2008163 to Burt P. Kotler and Joel S. Brown) for generous support of this research. We thank two anonymous referees for providing useful comments that improved the manuscript. This is publication no. 833 of the Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keren Embar.

Additional information

Communicated by Peter Banks.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 91 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOC 2266 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Embar, K., Raveh, A., Burns, D. et al. To dare or not to dare? Risk management by owls in a predator–prey foraging game. Oecologia 175, 825–834 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-2956-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-2956-0

Keywords

Navigation