Comparing alternative models to empirical data: Cognitive models of western scrub-jay foraging behavior

American Naturalist

Volumn 163, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 263-276

  Luttbeg, Barney ^a,c   Langen, Tom A ^b  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^b CLARKSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision rules; Diet selection; Likelihood statistics; Model selection

Indexed keywords

BIRD; COGNITION; DIET; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; MODELING;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COGNITION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION THEORY; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; PHYSIOLOGY; SONGBIRD; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; CALIFORNIA; COGNITION; DECISION THEORY; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SONGBIRDS;

ANIMALIA; APHELOCOMA CALIFORNICA; APHELOCOMA COERULESCENS; AVES; CORVIDAE; PASSERI;

EID: 1542542761     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/381319     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abrahams, M. V. 1986. Patch choice under perceptual constraints: a cause for departures from an ideal free distribution. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 19:409-415.
2. Abrams, P. A. 1999. The adaptive dynamics of consumer choice. American Naturalist 153:83-97.
3. Alonso, J. C., J. A. Alonso, L. M. Bautista, and R. Muñoz-Pulido. 1995. Patch use in cranes: a field test of optimal foraging predictions. Animal Behaviour 49:1367-1379.
4. Anderson, D. R., K. P. Burnham, and W. L. Thompson. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:912-923.
5. Bensch, S., and D. Hasselquist. 1992. Evidence for active female choice in a polygynous warbler. Animal Behaviour 44:301-312.
6. Bertorelle, G., A. Biazza, and A. Marcaonato. 1997. Computer simulation suggests that the spatial distribution of males influences female visiting behaviour in the river bullhead. Ethology 103:999-1014.
7. Brown, L. 1981. Patterns of female choice in mottled sculpins (Cottidae Teleostei). Animal Behaviour 29:375-382.
8. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York.
9. Chamberlin, T. 1890. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 15:92-96.
10. Clark, C. W., and M. Mangel. 2000. Dynamic state variable models in ecology. Oxford University Press, New York.
11. Curry, R., A. T. Peterson, and T. A. Langen. 2002. The western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica). Pages 1-36 in A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America. No. 712. Birds of North America, Philadelphia.
12. Dale, S., and T. Slagsvold. 1996. Mate choice on multiple cues, decision rules and sampling strategies in female pied flycatchers. Behaviour 133:903-944.
13. Dale, S., H. Rinden, and T. Slagsvold. 1992. Competition for a mate restricts mate search of female pied flycatchers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 30:165-176.
14. Fiske, P., and J. A. Kalas. 1995. Mate sampling and copulation behaviour of great snipe females. Animal Behaviour 49:209-219.
15. Gibson, R. M. 1996. Female choice in sage grouse: the roles of attraction and active comparison. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 39:55-59.
16. Gibson, R. M., and T. A. Langen. 1996. How do animals choose their mates? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11: 468-470.
17. Giraldeau, L. A. 1997. The ecology of information use. Pages 42-68 in R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds. Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach. 4th ed. Blackwell, London.
18. Gladstein, D. S., N. F. Carlin, and S. N. Austad. 1991. The need for sensitivity analyses of dynamic optimization models. Oikos 60:121-126.
19. Hilborn, R., and M. Mangel. 1997. The ecological detective. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
20. Honey, R. C., and P. Bateson. 1996. Stimulus comparison and perceptual learning: further evidence and evaluation from an imprinting procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49B:259-269.
21. Hunte, W., R. A. Myers, and R. W. Doyle. 1985. Bayesian mating decisions in an amphipod, Gammarus lawrencianus Bousfield. Animal Behaviour 33:366-372.
22. Janetos, A. C. 1980. Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 7:107-112.
23. Killeen, P. R., G.-M. Palombo, L. R. Gottlob, and J. Beam. 1996. Bayesian analysis of foraging by pigeons (Columba livia). Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes 22:480-496.
24. Langen, T. A. 1999. How western scrub-jays (Apelocoma californica) select a nut: effects of the number of options, variation in nut size, and social competition among foragers. Animal Cognition 2:223-233.
25. Langen, T. A., and R. M. Gibson. 1998. Sampling and information acquisition by western scrub-jays, Apelocoma californica. Animal Behaviour 55:1245-1254.
26. Luttbeg, B. 1996. A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. Behavioral Ecology 7:451-460.
27. _. 2002. Assessing the robustness and optimality of alternative decision rules with varying assumptions. Animal Behavior 63:805-814.
28. _. In press. Female mate assessment and choice behavior affect the frequency of alternative male mating tactics. Behavioral Ecology.
29. McIntyre, N. E., and J. A. Wiens. 1999. How does habitat patch size affect animal movement? an experiment with darkling beetles. Ecology 80:2261-2270.
30. McKenna, C. J. 1985. Uncertainty and the labour market: recent developments in job-search theory. St. Martin's, New York.
31. Mitchell, R. 1975. The evolution of oviposition tactics in the bean weevil, Calllosobrushus macalatus (F.). Ecology 56:696-702.
32. Nonacs, P., and J. I. Soriano. 1998. Patch sampling behaviour and future foraging expectations in Argentine ants, Linepithema humile. Animal Behaviour 55:519-527.
33. Ollson, O., U. Wiktander, N. M. A. Holmgren, and S. G. Nilsson. 1999. Gaining information about Bayesian foragers through their behaviour. II. A field test with woodpeckers. Oikos 87:264-276.
34. Pitt, M. A., and I. J. Myung. 2002. When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:421-425.
35. Platt, J. R. 1964. Strong inference. Science 146:347-353.
36. Real, L. 1990. Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. American Naturalist 136: 376-405.
37. Reid, M. L., and J. A. Stamps. 1997. Female mate choice tactics in a resource-based mating system: field tests of alternative models. American Naturalist 150:98-121.
38. Rintamaki, P. T., R. V. Alatalo, J. Hoglund, and A. Lundberg. 1995. Mate sampling behaviour of black grouse females (Tetrao tetrix). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 37:209-215.
39. Stephens, D. W. 1989. Variance and the value of information. American Naturalist 134:128-140.
40. Taper, M. L., and S. R. Lele. 2004. The nature of scientific evidence: statistical, philosophical, and empirical considerations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
41. Uy, A. C., G. Patricelli, and G. Borgia. 2001. Complex mate searching in the satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. American Naturalist 158:530-542.
42. Valone, T. J. 1992. Information for patch assessment: a field investigation with black-chinned hummingbirds. Behavioral Ecology 3:211-222.
43. Valone, T. J., S. E. Nordell, L. A. Giraldeau, and J. Templeton. 1996. The empirical question of thresholds and mechanisms of mate choice. Evolutionary Ecology 10: 447-455.
44. Wiegmann, D. D., L. A. Real, T. A. Capone, and S. Ellner. 1996. Some distinguishing features of models of search behavior and mate choice. American Naturalist 147: 188-204.
45. Wilhaber, M. L., R. F. Green, and L. B. Crowder. 1994. Bluegills continuously update patch giving up times based on foraging experience. Animal Behaviour 47: 501-513.
46. Wittenberger, J. F. 1983. Tactics of mate choice. Pages 435-447 in P. Bateson, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, New York.