Complex state-dependent games between owls and gerbils

Ecology Letters

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 302-310

  Berger Tal, Oded ^a   Mukherjee, Shomen ^a   Kotler, Burt P ^a   Brown, Joel S ^b  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Allenby's gerbils; Apprehension and vigilance; Barn owls; Foraging; Game theory; Giving up density; Harvest rate curves; Predator state; Predator prey interactions; Risk management

Indexed keywords

GERBILLINAE; STRIGIFORMES; TYTONIDAE;

EID: 77949899995     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01447.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abrams PA. Implications of dynamically variable traits for identifying, classifying and measuring direct and indirect effects in ecological communities. Am. Nat. 1995, 146:112-134.
2. Alonzo SH. State-dependent habitat selection games between predators and prey: the importance of behavioural interactions and expected lifetime reproductive success. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2002, 4:759-778.
3. Altwegg R. Hungry predators render predator-avoidance behavior in tadpoles ineffective. Oikos 2003, 100:311-316.
4. Berger-Tal O, Kotler BP. State of emergency: gerbil behavior is affected by the hunger state of their predators. Ecology 2010, 91((2)):593-600.
5. Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler BP, Brown JS. Look before you leap: is risk of injury a foraging cost? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63:1821-1827.
6. Brown JS. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1988, 22:37-47.
7. Brown JS. Patch use under predation risk. I. Models and predictions. Ann. Zoolog. Fenni. 1992, 29:301-309.
8. Brown JS. Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1999, 1:49-71.
9. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Mitchell WA. Foraging theory, patch use, and the structure of a negev desert granivore community. Ecology 1994, 75:2286-2300.
10. Brown JS, Laundre JW, Gurung M. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J. Mammal. 1999, 80:385-399.
11. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Bouskila A. The ecology of fear: Foraging games between predators and prey with pulsed resources. Ann. Zoolog. Fenni. 2001, 38:71-87.
12. Charnov EL. Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1976, 9:129-136.
13. Clark CW. Antipredator behavior and the asset-protection principle. Behav. Ecol. 1994, 5:159-170.
14. Dall SRX, Kotler BP, Bouskila A. Attention, apprehension, and gerbils searching in patches. Ann. Zoolog. Fenni. 2001, 38:15-23.
15. Flaxman SM, deRoos CA. Different modes of resource variation provide a critical test of ideal free distribution models. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007, 61:877-886.
16. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 1969, 14:16-36.
17. Fryxell JM, Lundberg P. Individual Behavior and Community Dynamics 1998, Chapman and Hall, New York
18. Hammond JI, Luttbeg B, Sih A. Predator and prey space use: dragonflies and tadpoles in an interactive game. Ecology 2007, 88:1525-1535.
19. Heithaus MR, Frid A, Wirsing AJ, Dill LM, Fourqurean JW, Burkholder D. State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 2007, 76:837-844.
20. Holling CS. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 1959, 91:385-398.
21. Hugie DM, Dill LM. Fish and game-a game-theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J. Fish Biol. 1994, 45:151-169.
22. Kotler BP. Patch use by gerbils in a risky environment: manipulating food and safety to test four models. Oikos 1997, 78:274-282.
23. Kotler BP, Brown JS. Rates of seed harvest by two species of gerbilline rodents. J. Mammal. 1990, 71:591-596.
24. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hasson O. Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 1991, 72:2249-2260.
25. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Mitchell WA. Environmental factors affecting patch use in gerbilline rodents. J. Mammal. 1993, 74:614-620.
26. Kotler BP, Blaustein L. Titrating food and safety in a heterogeneous environment: when are the risky and safe patches of equal value? Oikos 1995, 74:251-258.
27. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Dall SRX, Gresser S, Ganey D, Bouskila A. Foraging games between owls and gerbils: temporal dynamics of resource depletion and apprehension in gerbils. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2002, 4:495-518.
28. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Bouskila A. Apprehension and time allocation in gerbils: the effects of predatory risk and energetic state. Ecology 2004, 85:917-922.
29. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Mukherjee S, Berger-Tal O, Bouskila A. Moonlight avoidance in gerbils reveals a sophisticated interplay among time allocation, vigilance, and state dependent foraging. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2036, doi:
30. Krivan V, Cressman R, Schneider C. The ideal free distribution: a review and synthesis of the game-theoretic perspective. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2008, 73:403-425.
31. Liley S, Creel S. What best explains vigilance in elk: characteristics of prey, predators, or the environment? Behav. Ecol. 2008, 19:245-254.
32. Lima SL. Initiation and termination of daily feeding in dark-eyed juncos: influences of predation risk and energy reserves. Oikos 1988, 53:3-11.
33. Lima SL. Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group size effect. Anim. Behav. 1995, 49:11-20.
34. Lima SL. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17:70-75.
35. Luttbeg B, Rowe L, Mangel M. Prey state and experimental design affect relative size of trait- and density-mediated indirect effects. Ecology 2003, 84:1140-1150.
36. McNamara JM, Houston AI. The common currency for behavioral decisions. Am. Nat. 1986, 127:358-378.
37. Moir F, Weissburg MJ. Cautious cannibals: behavioral responses of juvenile and adult blue crabs to the odor of injured conspecifics. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2009, 369:87-92.
38. Morris DW. Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 2003, 136:1-13.
39. Ovadia O, Ziv Y, Abramsky Z, Pinshow B, Kotler BP. Harvest rates and foraging strategies in Negev Desert gerbils. Behav. Ecol. 2001, 12:219-226.
40. Pettersson LB, Bronmark C. Trading off safety against food - state-dependent habitat choice and foraging in crucian carp. Oecologia 1993, 95:353-357.
41. Riechert SE, Hammerstein P. Game theory in the ecological context. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1983, 14:377-409.
42. Sih A. Game theory and predator-prey response races. Game Theory and Animal Behavior 1998, 221-238. Dugatkin LAReeve HK. In, eds, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, pp
43. Whitham J, Mathis A. Effects of hunger and predation risk on foraging behavior of graybelly salamanders, Eurycea multiplicata. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26:1659-1665.
44. Winnie J, Christianson D, Creel S, Maxwell B. Elk decision-making rules are simplified in the presence of wolves. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 61:277-289.
45. Ziv Y, Kotler BP, Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML. Foraging efficiencies of competing rodents-why do gerbils exhibit shared-preference habitat selection. Oikos 1995, 73:260-268.