Skip to main content
Log in

Increased olfactory search costs change foraging behaviour in an alien mustelid: a precursor to prey switching?

  • Behavioral ecology –original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

If generalist predators are to hunt efficiently, they must track the changing costs and benefits of multiple prey types. Decisions to switch from hunting preferred prey to alternate prey have been assumed to be driven by decreasing availability of preferred prey, with less regard for accessibility of alternate prey. Olfactory cues from prey provide information about prey availability and its location, and are exploited by many predators to reduce search costs. We show that stoats Mustela erminea, an alien olfactory predator in New Zealand, are sensitive to the search costs of hunting both their preferred rodent prey (mice) and a less desirable alternate prey (locust). We manipulated search costs for stoats using a novel form of olfactory camouflage of both prey, and found that stoats altered their foraging strategy depending on whether mice were camouflaged or conspicuous, but only when locusts were also camouflaged. Stoats gave up foraging four times more often when both prey were camouflaged, compared to when mice were conspicuous and locusts camouflaged. There were no differences in the foraging strategies used to hunt camouflaged or conspicuous mice when locusts were easy to find. Consequently, camouflaged mice survived longer than conspicuous mice when locusts were hard to find, but not when locusts were easy to find. Our results demonstrate that predators can integrate search costs from multiple prey types when making foraging decisions. Manipulating olfactory search costs to alter foraging strategies offers new methods for understanding the factors that foreshadow prey switching.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson M, Erlinge S (1977) Influence of predation on rodent populations. Oikos 29:591–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooker RM, Munday PL, Chivers DP, Jones GP (2015) You are what you eat: diet-induced chemical crypsis in a coral-feeding reef fish. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 282:20141887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bytheway J, Carthey AJR, Banks PB (2013) Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:715–725. doi:10.1007/s00265-013-1494-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carthey AJR, Bytheway JP, Banks PB (2011) Negotiating a noisy, information-rich environment in search of cryptic prey: olfactory predators need patchiness in prey cues. J Anim Ecol 80:742–752. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01817.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chittka L, Skorupski P, Raine NE (2009) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol Evol 24:400–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choquenot D (2006) Bioeconomic modeling in conservation pest management: effect of stoat control on extinction risk of an indigenous New Zealand passerine, Mohua ochrocephala. Conserv Biol 20:480–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cowie RJ (1977) Optimal foraging in Great Tits (Parus major). Nature 268:137–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross F, Jackson R (2010) Olfactory search-image use by a mosquito-eating predator. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:3173–3178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham SJ, Castro I, Potter MA (2009) The relative importance of olfaction and remote touch in prey detection by North Island brown kiwis. Anim Behav 78:899–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J, Maddocks T, Parraga CA, Troscianko TS (2005) Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature 434:72–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Uriarte R (2002) Incorrect analysis of crossover trials in animal behaviour research. Anim Behav 63:815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy G, Giraudoux P, Delattre P (2009) Numerical and dietary responses of a predator community in a temperate zone of Europe. Ecography 32:277–290. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.04930.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Henttonen H, Korpimäki E, Oksanen L, Turchin P (2001) Small-rodent dynamics and predation. Ecology 82:1505–1520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggard DJ (1993) Prey selectivity of wolves in Banff National Park. I. Prey species. Can J Zool 71:130–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes RN (1979) Optimal diets under the energy maximisation premise—effects of recognition time and learning. Am Nat 113:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes RN (1993) Diet selection—an interdisciplinary approach to foraging behaviour. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes N, Kelley J, Banks P (2009) Receiving behaviour is sensitive to risks from eavesdropping predators. Oecologia 160:609–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes NK, Price CJ, Banks PB (2010) Predators are attracted to the olfactory signals of prey. PLoS ONE 5:e13114. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013114

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsson J, Kjällman-Eriksson K (2008) Cryptic prey colouration increases search time in brown trout (Salmo trutta): effects of learning and body size. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1613–1620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King CM, Powell RA (2007) The natural history of weasels and stoats: ecology, behavior and management, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiørboe T, Saiz E, Viitasalo M (1996) Prey switching behaviour in the planktonic copepod Acartia tonsa. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 143:65–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjellander P, Nordström J (2003) Cyclic voles, prey switching in red fox, and roe deer dynamics—a test of the alternative prey hypothesis. Oikos 101:338–344. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11986.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpimäki E, Norrdahl K, Klemola T, Pettersen T, Stenseth NC (2002) Dynamic effects of predators on cyclic voles: field experimentation and model extrapolation. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 269:991–997. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Kacelnik A (1991) Decision-making. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham ADM, Latham MC, Knopff KH, Hebblewhite M, Boutin S (2013) Wolves, white-tailed deer, and beaver: implications of seasonal prey switching for woodland caribou declines. Ecography 36:1276–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecomte N, Careau V, Gauthier G, Giroux J-F (2008) Predator behaviour and predation risk in the heterogeneous Arctic environment. J Anim Ecol 77:439–477. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01354.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macarthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch WW (1969) Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol Monogr 39:335–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy EC, Keedwell RJ, Brown KP, Westbrooke I (2004) Diet of mammalian predators in braided river beds in the central South Island, New Zealand. Wildl Res 31:631–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy E, Maddigan F, Edwards B, Clapperton K (2008) Diet of stoats at Okarito Kiwi Sanctuary, South Westland, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 32:41–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Nams VO (1991) Olfactory search images in striped skunks. Behaviour 119:267–284. doi:10.1163/156853991X00472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norbury G (2001) Conserving dryland lizards by reducing predator-mediated apparent competition and direct competition with introduced rabbits. J Appl Ecol 38:1350–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oaten A, Murdoch WW (1975) Switching, functional response, and stability in predator-prey systems. Am Nat 109:299–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostfeld RS (1982) Foraging strategies and prey switching in the California Sea Otter. Oecologia 53:170–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pech RP, Sinclair ARE, Newsome AE (1995) Predation models for primary and secondary prey species. Wildl Res 22:55–63. doi:10.1071/WR9950055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelech SA, Smith JNM, Boutin S (2010) A predator’s perspective of nest predation: predation by red squirrels is learned, not incidental. Oikos 119:841–851. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17786.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price CJ, Banks PB (2012) Exploiting olfactory learning in alien rats to protect birds’ eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:19304–19309. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210981109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JL, Cresswell W (2004) Predator hunting behaviour and prey vulnerability. J Anim Ecol 73:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratkowsky DA, Evans MA, Alldredge JR (1993) Cross-over experiments: design, analysis and application. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohner C, Krebs CJ (1996) Owl predation on snowshoe hares: consequences of antipredator behaviour. Oecologia 108:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden J, Feldman M (1975) Species packing and predation pressure. Ecology 56:489–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SASInstitute (2009) JMP version 8.0. SAS, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Sih A, Christensen B (2001) Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail? Anim Behav 61:379–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DHV, Jamieson IG, Peach RME (2005) Importance of ground weta (Hemiandrus spp.) in stoat (Mustela erminea) diet in small montane valleys and alpine grasslands. N Z J Ecol 29:207–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith DHV, Moller H, Wilson DJ, Murphy EC (2010) Prey switching by stoats (Mustela erminea): a supplemental food experiment. Wildl Res 37:604–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens M (2007) Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:1457–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straddon JER, Gendron RP (1983) Optimal detection of cryptic prey may lead to predator switching. Am Nat 122:843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundell J, Eccard JA, Tiilikainen R, Ylönen H (2003) Predation rate, prey preference and predator switching: experiments on voles and weasels. Oikos 101:615–623. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12264.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen L (1960) The control of insects on pinewoods. I. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by songbirds. Arch Neerl Zool 13:265–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen E, Jansen VAA, Bright PW (2007) How population dynamics shape the functional response in a one-predator-two-prey system. Ecology 88:1571–1581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Pech and A. Byrom for facilitating our visit to Landcare Research and helpful discussions, G. Morriss for technical assistance with video equipment, J. Arrow and all the staff of the Lincoln Animal Research Facility for their generous assistance during the experiment, and J. Dunkerley for help during fieldwork. This study was funded by the ARC Discovery Grant DP0881455 awarded to P.B.B. and conducted in accordance with UNSW Animal Ethics Approval 09/92A. It is dedicated to the late DC Price.

Author contribution statement

C.J.P. and P.B.B. conceived and designed the experiments. C.J.P. performed the experiments and analysed the data. C.J.P. and P.B.B. wrote the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine J. Price.

Additional information

Communicated by Janne Sundell.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 217 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Price, C.J., Banks, P.B. Increased olfactory search costs change foraging behaviour in an alien mustelid: a precursor to prey switching?. Oecologia 182, 119–128 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3660-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3660-z

Keywords

Navigation