Increasing vulnerability to predation increases preference for the scrounger foraging tactic

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 131-138

  Mathot, Kimberley J ^a   Giraldeau, Luc Alain ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Phenotype limited; Producer scrounger; Social foraging; Taeniopygia guttata; Vulnerability to predation; Zebra finch

Indexed keywords

FORAGING BEHAVIOR; PASSERINE; PERCEPTION; PHENOTYPE; PREDATION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TIME ALLOCATION; VULNERABILITY;

ANIMALIA; HUMULUS; TAENIOPYGIA GUTTATA;

EID: 38149081349     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm114     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Barbosa A. 1995. Foraging strategies and their influence on scanning and flocking behaviour of waders. J Avian Biol. 26:182-186.
2. Barnard CJ, Sibly RM. 1981. Producers and scroungers: a general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Anim Behav. 29:543-550.
3. Barta Z, Flynn R, Giraldeau L-A. 1997. Geometry for a selfish foraging group: a genetic algorithm approach. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 264:1233-1238.
4. Barta Z, Giraldeau L-A. 1998. The effect of dominance hierarchy on the use of alternative foraging tactics: a phenotype-limited producing-scrounging game. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 42:217-223.
5. Barta Z, Giraldeau L-A. 2000. Daily patterns of optimal producer and scrounger use under predation hazard: a state-dependent dynamic game analysis. Am Nat. 155:570-582.
6. Barta Z, Liker A, Mónus F. 2004. The effects of predation risk on the use of social foraging tactics. Anim Behav. 67:301-308.
7. Beauchamp G. 2000. The effect of prior residence and pair bond on scrounging choices in flocks of zebra finches, Taenopygia guttata. Behav Process. 52:131-140.
8. Beauchamp G. 2001. Consistency and flexibility in the scrounging behaviour of zebra finches. Can J Zool. 79:540-544.
9. Beauchamp G. 2006. Phenotypic correlates of scrounging behavior in zebra finches: role of foraging efficiency and dominance. Ethology. 112:873-878.
10. Bednekoff PA. 1996. Translating mass dependent flight performance into predation risk: an extension of Metcalfe & Ure. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 263:887-889.
11. Bednekoff PA, Houston AI. 1994. Dynamic models of mass-dependent predation, risk-sensitive foraging, and premigratory fattening in birds. Ecology. 75:1131-1140.
12. Bugnyar T, Kotrschal K. 2002. Scrounging tactics in free-ranging ravens, Corvus corax. Ethology. 108:993-1009.
13. Burns JG, Ydenberg RC. 2002. The effects of wing loading and gender on the escape flights of least sandpipers (Calidris minutilla) and western sandpipers (Calidris mauri). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:128-136.
14. Coolen I. 2002. Increasing foraging group size increases scrounger use and reduces searching efficiency in nutmeg mannikins (Lonchura punctulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:232-238.
15. Coolen I, Giraldeau L-A. 2003. Incompatibility between antipredatory vigilance and scrounger tactic in nutmeg mannikins, Lonchura punctulata. Anim Behav. 66:657-664.
16. Coolen I, Giraldeau L-A, Lavoie M. 2001. Head position as an indicator of producer and scrounger tactics in a ground-feeding bird. Anim Behav. 61:895-903.
17. Elgar MA. 1989. Predator vigilance and group size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol Rev. 64:13-33.
18. Elgar MA, McKay H, Woon P. 1986. Scanning, pecking and alarm flights in house sparrows. Anim Behav. 34:1892-1894.
19. FitzGibbon CD. 1989. A cost to individuals with reduced vigilance in groups of Thomson's gazelles hunted by cheetahs. Anim Behav. 37:508-510.
20. Flynn RE, Giraldeau L-A. 2001. Producer-scrounger games in a spatially explicit world: tactic use influences flock geometry of spice finches. Ethology. 107:249-257.
21. Giraldeau LA, Caraco T. 2000. An introduction to producer-scrounger games. In: Krebs JR, Clutton-Brock TH, editors. Social foraging theory. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. p. 151-173.
22. Giraldeau LA, Hogan JA, Clinchy MJ. 1990. The payoffs to producing and scrounging: what happens when patches are divisible? Ethology. 85:132-146.
23. Ha RR, Ha JC. 2003. Effects of ecology and prey characteristics on the use of alternative foraging tactics in crows, Corvus caurinus. Anim Behav. 66:309-316.
24. Hambly C, Harper EJ, Speakman JR. 2002. Cost of flight in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata): a novel approach based on elimination of 13C labelled bicarbonate. J Comp Physiol [B]. 172:529-539.
25. Keys GC, Dugatkin LA. 1990. Flock size and position effects on vigilance, aggression, and prey capture in the European starling. Condor. 92:151-159.
26. Koops MA, Giraldeau L-A. 1996. Producer-scrounger foraging games in starlings: a test of rate-maximizing and risk-sensitive models. Anim Behav. 51:773-783.
27. Krause J, Godin JGJ. 1996. Influence of prey foraging posture on flight behavior and predation risk: predators take advantage of unwary prey. Behav Ecol. 7:264-271.
28. Kullberg C, Jakobsson S, Kaby U, Lind J. 2005. Impaired flight ability prior to egg-laying: a cost of being a capital breeder. Funct Ecol. 19:98-101.
29. Liker A, Barta Z. 2002. The effects of dominance on social foraging tactic use in house sparrows. Behaviour. 139:1061-1076.
30. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA. 1999. Back to the basics of antipredatory vigilance: can nonvigilant animals detect attack? Anim Behav. 58:537-543.
31. Littell RC, Freund RJ, Spector PC. 1991. SAS system for linear models. 3rd ed. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc.
32. Livoreil B, Giraldeau LA. 1997. Patch departure decisions by spice finches foraging singly or in groups. Anim Behav. 54:967-977.
33. Marchetti K, Price T, Richman A. 1995. Correlates of wing morphology with foraging behaviour and migration distance in the genus Phylloscopus. J Avian Biol. 26:177-181.
34. Montgomery DC. 2005. Design and analysis of experiments. 6th ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
35. Moreno J. 1989. Strategies of mass change in breeding birds. Biol J Linn Soc. 37:297-310.
36. Mottley K, Giraldeau L-A. 2000. Experimental evidence that group foragers can converge on predicted producer-scrounger equilibria. Anim Behav. 60:341-350.
37. Pennycuick CJ. 1975. Mechanics of flight. In: Farner DS, King JR, editors. Avian biology. New York: Academic Press. p. 1-75.
38. Pennycuick CJ. 1989. Bird flight performance: a practical calculation manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Petit DR, Bildstein KL. 1987. Effect of group size and location within the group on the foraging behavior of white ibises. Condor. 89:602-609.
40. Ranta E, Peuhkuri N, Hirvonen H, Barnard CJ. 1998. Producers, scroungers and the price of a free meal. Anim Behav. 55:737-744.
41. Ranta E, Peuhkuri N, Laurila A, Rita H, Metcalfe NB. 1996. Producers, scroungers and foraging group structure. Anim Behav. 51:171-175.
42. Thibaudeau A. 2004. Modes d'approvisionnement alternatifs: une exploration de la flexibilité et de l'utilisation des tactiques individuelles chez le Capucin damier (Lonchura puntulata) (Masters thesis). Montréal (Canada): Université du Québec à Montréal.
43. van der Veen IT, Lindström A. 2000. Escape flights of yellowhammers and greenfinches: more than just physics. Anim Behav. 59:593-501.
44. Veasey JS, Houston DC, Metcalfe NB. 2001. A hidden cost of reproduction: the trade-off between clutch size and escape take-off speed in female zebra finches. J Anim Ecol. 71:20-24.
45. Vickery WL, Giraldeau L-A, Templeton JJ, Kramer DL, Chapman CA. 1991. Producers, scroungers, and group foraging. Am Nat. 137:847-863.