Predators feeding on behaviourally responsive prey: Some implications for classical models of optimal diet choice

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 5, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 1083-1102

  Lima, Steven L ^a   Mitchell, William A ^a   Roth II, Timothy C ^a  

^a INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anti predator behaviour; Diet models; Foraging theory; Partial preferences; Predator prey interactions; Prey management; Vigilance

Indexed keywords

EID: 2542450078     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Abrams, P.A. and Schmilz, O.J. 1999. The effect of risk of mortality on the foraging behaviour of animals faced with time and digestive capacity constraints. Evol. Ecol. Res., 1: 285-301.
2. Anholt, B.R., Ludwig, D. and Rasmussen, J.B. 1987. Optimal pursuit times: how long should predators pursue their prey. Theor. Pop. Biol., 31: 453-464.
3. Bednekoff, P.A. and Lima, S.L. 1998. Randomness, chaos, and confusion in the study of anti-predator vigilance. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13: 284-287.
4. Bednekoff, P.A. and Lima, S.L. 2002. Why are scanning patterns so variable? An overlooked question in the study of anti-predator vigilance. J. Avian Biol., 33: 143-149.
5. Belovsky, G.E. 1978. Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theor. Pop. Biol., 14: 105-134.
6. Brown, J.S. and Morgan, R.A. 1995. Effects of foraging behavior and spatial scale on diet selectivity: a test with fox squirrels. Oikos, 74: 122-136.
7. Brown, J.S., Kotler, B.P. and Bouskila, A. 2001. Ecology of fear: foraging games between predators and prey with pulsed resources. Ann. Zool. Fenn., 38: 71-87.
8. Charnov, E.L. 1976. Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid. Am. Nat., 110: 141-151.
9. Chivers, D.P. and Mirza, R.S. 2001. Predator diet cues and the assessment of predation risk by aquatic invertebrates: a review and prospectus. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Vol. 9 (A. Marchlewska-Koj, J.J. Lepri and D. Müller-Scharze, eds), pp. 277-284. New York: Plenum Press.
10. Cimprich, D.A. and Grubb, T.C., Jr. 1994. Consequences for carolina chickadees of foraging with tufted titmice in winter. Ecology, 75: 1615-1625.
11. Dill, L.M. 1987. Animal decision making and its ecological consequences: the future of aquatic ecology and behaviour. Can. J. Zool., 65: 803-811.
12. Dolby, A.S. and Grubb, T.C., Jr. 1998. Benefits to satellite members in mixed-species foraging groups: an experimental analysis. Anim. Behav., 56: 501-509.
13. Elgar, M.A. 1989. Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol. Rev., 64: 13-33.
14. FitzGibbon, C.D. 1989. A cost to individuals with reduced vigilance in groups of Thomson's gazelles hunted by cheetahs. Anim. Behav., 37: 508-510.
15. FitzGibbon, C.D. 1990. Mixed-species groupings in Thomson's and Grant's gazelles: the anti-predator benefits. Anim. Behav., 39: 1116-1126.
16. Gilliam, J.F. 1990. Hunting by the hunted: optimal prey selection by foragers under predation hazard. In Behavioural Mechanisms of Food Selection (R.N. Hughes, ed.), pp. 797-818. NATO ASI Series, Vol. G20. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17. Giraldeau, L.-A. and Caraco, T. 2000. Social Foraging Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18. Glaizot, O. and Arditi, R. 1998. Optimal inspection time in foraging strategies: a model for superparasitism in insect parasitoids. Neth. J. Zool., 48: 121-144.
19. Godin, J.-G.J. 1990. Diet selection under the risk of predation. In Behavioral Mechanisms of Food Selection (R.N. Hughes, ed.), pp. 739-769. NATO ASI Series. Vol. G20. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
20. Grand, T.C. 2002. Foraging-predation risk tradeoffs, habitat selection, and the coexistence of competitors. Am. Nat., 159: 106-112.
21. Heithaus, M.R. 2001. Habitat selection by predators and prey in communities with asymmetrical intraguild predation. Oikos, 92: 542-554.
22. Hirakawa, H. 1995. Diet optimization with a nutrient or toxin constraint. Theor. Pop. Biol., 47: 331-346.
23. Hugie, D.M. and Dill, L.M. 1994. Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J. Fish Biol., 45: 151-169.
24. Kotler, B.P., Brown J.S., Dall, S.R.X., Gresser, S., Ganey, D. and 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.
25. Krause, J. 1994. Differential fitness returns in relation to spatial position in groups. Biol. Rev., 69: 187-206.
26. Lima, S.L. 1988. Vigilance and diet selection: the classical diet model reconsidered. J. Theor. Biol., 132: 127-143.
27. Lima, S.L. 1990. The influence of models on the interpretation of vigilance. In Interpretation and Explanation in the Study of Animal Behavior: Explanation, Evolution, and Adaptation (M. Bekoff and D. Jamieson, eds), pp. 246-267. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
28. Lima, S.L. 1998. Stress and decision-making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive and ecological perspectives. Adv. Stud. Behav., 27: 215-290.
29. Lima, S.L. 2002. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol., 17: 70-75.
30. Lima, S.L. and Dill, L.M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool., 68: 619-640.
31. Lima, S.L. and Zollner, P.A. 1996. Anti-predatory vigilance and limits to collective detection: spatial and visual separation between foragers. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 38: 355-363.
32. Luttbeg, B. and Schmitz, O.J. 2000. Predator and prey models with flexible individual behavior and imperfect information. Am. Nat., 155: 669-683.
33. MacArthur, R.H. and Pianka, E.R. 1966. On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am. Nat., 100: 603-609.
34. Mangel, M. and Clark, C.W. 1988. Dynamic Modeling in Behavioral Ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35. Matsuda, H., Abrams, P.A. and Hori, M. 1993. The effect of adaptive anti-predator behavior on exploitative competition and mutualism between predators. Oikos. 68: 549-559.
36. Maynard Smith, J. 1982. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. McIntosh, A.R. and Peckarsky, B.L. 1999. Criteria determining behavioural responses to multiple predators by a stream mayfly. Oikos, 85: 554-564.
38. McNamara, J.M. and Houston, A.I. 1992. Evolutionarily stable levels of vigilance as a function of group size. Anim. Behav, 43: 641-658.
39. Mitchell, W.A. 1990. An optimal-control theory of diet selection - the effects of resource depletion and exploitative competition. Oikos, 58: 16-24.
40. Mitchell, W.A. and Valone, T.J. 1990. The optimization research program: studying adaptations by their function. Q. Rev. Biol., 65: 43-65.
41. Newton, I. 1998. Population Limitation in Birds. New York: Academic Press.
42. Noe, R. and Bshary, R. 1997. The formation of red colobus-diana monkey associations under predation pressure from chimpanzees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 264: 253-259.
43. Parker, G.A. and Hammerstein, P. 1985. Game theory and animal behaviour. In Evolution: Essays in Honour of John Maynard Smith (P.J. Greenwood, P.H. Harvey and M. Slatkin, eds), pp. 73-94. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Pulliam, H.R. 1974. On the theory of optimal diets. Am. Nat., 108: 59-75.
45. Rechten, C., Avery, M.I. and Stevens, T.A. 1983. Optimal prey selection: why do great tits show partial preferences? Anim. Behav., 31: 576-584.
46. Roberts, G. 1996. Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim. Behav., 51: 1077-1086.
47. Scannell, J., Roberts, G. and Lazarus, J. 2001. Prey scan at random to evade observant predators. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268: 541-547.
48. Schmitz, O.J. 1997. Commemorating 30 years of optimal foraging theory. Evol. Ecol., 11: 631-632.
49. Schoener, T.W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 2: 369-404.
50. Schwinning, S. and Rosenzweig, M.L. 1990. Periodic oscillations in an ideal-free predator-prey distribution. Oikos, 59: 85-91.
51. Sih, A. 1987. Predators and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities (W.C. Kerfoot and A. Sih, eds), pp. 203-224. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
52. Sih, A. and Christensen, B. 2001. Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when does it fail? Anim. Behav., 61: 379-390.
53. Sih, A. and Krupa, J.J. 1996. Direct and indirect effects of multiple enemies on water strider mating dynamics. Oecologia, 105: 179-188.
54. Sih, A., Englund, G. and Wooster, W. 1998. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13: 350-355.
55. Soluk, D.A. and Collins, N.C. 1988. Synergistic interactions between fish and stoneflies: facilitation and interference among stream predators. Oikos, 52: 94-100.
56. Stephens, D.W. and Charnov, E.L. 1982. Optimal foraging: some simple stochastic models. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 10: 251-263.
57. Stephens, D.W. and Krebs, J.R. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58. Stephens, D.W., Lynch, J.F., Sorensen, A.E. and Gordon, C. 1986. Preferences and profitability: theory and experiment. Am. Nat., 127: 533-553.
59. Sullivan, K.A. 1984. Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks. Behaviour, 91: 294-311.
60. Thompson, D.B.A. and Barnard, C.J. 1984. Prey selection by plovers: optimal foraging in mixed-species groups. Anim. Behav., 32: 534-563.
61. Treves, A. 2000. Theory and method in studies of vigilance and aggregation. Anim. Behav., 60: 711-722.
62. Visser, M.E. 1991. Prey selection by predators depleting a patch: an ESS model. Neth. J. Zool., 41: 63-80.
63. Yamamura, N. and Tsuji, N. 1987. Optimal patch time under exploitative competition. Am. Nat., 129: 553-561.