Smart, smarter, smartest: Foraging information states and coexistence

Oikos

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 292-303

  Olsson, Ola ^a   Brown, Joel S ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; DECISION MAKING; FAUNISTICS; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; PATCH USE;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 77952914725     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17784.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Armstrong R A, McGehee R. Coexistence of species competing for shared resources. Theor. Popul. Biol 1976, 9:317-328.
2. Ben Natan G. Seeds redistribution in sand dunes: a basis for coexistence of two rodent species. Oikos 2004, 105:325-335.
3. Brown J S. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk and competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol 1988, 22:37-47.
4. Brown J S. Desert rodent community structure: a test of four mechanisms of coexistence. Ecol. Monogr 1989, 59:1-20.
5. Brown J S, Rosenzweig M L. Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J. Theor. Biol 1986, 123:151-171.
6. Charnov E L. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor. Popul. Biol 1976, 9:129-136.
7. Dall S R X. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol 2005, 20:187-193.
8. Donaldson-Matasci M C. The fitness value of information. Oikos 2010, 119:219-230.
9. Green R F. Bayesian birds: a simple example of Oaten's stochastic model of optimal foraging. Theor. Popul. Biol 1980, 18:244-256.
10. Green R F. Stopping rules for optimal foragers. Am. Nat 1984, 123:30-40.
11. Green R F. Stochastic models of optimal foraging. Foraging behavior 1987, 273-302. Kamil A C. Plenum Press
12. Green R F. Optimal foraging for patchily distributed prey: random search 1988, Tech. Rep. 88-2. Dept of Mathematics and Statistics, Univ. of Minnesota, Duluth
13. Green R F. A simpler, more general method of finding the optimal foraging strategy for Bayesian birds. Oikos 2006, 112:274-284.
14. Iwasa Y. Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am. Nat 1981, 117:710-723.
15. Kawaguchi L G. Contrasting responses of bumble bees to feeding conspecifics on their familiar and unfamiliar flowers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2007, 274:2661-2667.
16. Lima S L. Downy woodpecker foraging behavior: efficient sampling in a simple stochastic environment. Ecology 1984, 65:166-174.
17. MacArthur R H, Levins R. The limiting similarity, convergence, anddivergence of coexisting species. Am. Nat 1967, 101:377-385.
18. McNamara J M. Optimal patch use in a stochastic environment. Theor. Popul. Biol 1982, 21:269-288.
19. McNamara J M. Bayes' theorem and its applications in animal behaviour. Oikos 2006, 112:243-251.
20. Nolet B A. Foraging costs and accessibility as determinants of giving-up densities in a swan-pondweed system. Oikos 2006, 112:353-362.
21. Oaten A. Optimal foraging in patches: a case for stochasticity. Theor. Popul. Biol 1977, 12:263-285.
22. Olsson O. Bayesian foraging with only two patch types. Oikos 2006, 112:285-297.
23. Olsson O, Holmgren N M A. The survival-rate-maximizing policy for Bayesian foragers: wait for good news. Behav. Ecol 1998, 9:345-353.
24. Olsson O, Holmgren N M A. Optimal Bayesian foraging policies and prey population dynamics - some comments on Rodríguez-Gironés and Vásquez. Theor. Popul. Biol 2000, 57:369-375.
25. Olsson O, Brown J S. The foraging benefits of information and the penalty of ignorance. Oikos 2006, 112:260-273.
26. Olsson O. Gaining ecological information about Bayesian foragers through their behaviour. II. A field test with woodpeckers. Oikos 1999, 87:264-276.
27. Olsson O. Gain curves in depletable food patches: a test of five models with European starlings. Evol. Ecol. Res 2001, 3:285-310.
28. Plotnick R E. Chemoreception, odor landscapes and foraging in ancient marine landscapes 2007, Palaeontol. Electronica 10: article 1A
29. Rodríguez-Gironés M A, Vásquez R A. Density-dependent patch exploitation and acquisition of environmental information. Theor. Popul. Biol 1997, 52:32-42.
30. Rosenzweig M L. A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 1981, 62:327-335.
31. Sandlin E A. Cue use affects resource subdivision among three coexisting hummingbird species. Behav. Ecol 2000, 11:550-559.
32. Valone T J, Brown J S. Measuring patch assessment abilities of desert granivores. Ecology 1989, 70:1800-1810.
33. van Gils J A. State-dependent Bayesian foraging on spatially autocorrelated food distributions. Oikos 2010, 119:237-244.
34. van Gils J A. Incompletely informed shorebirds that face a digestive constraint maximize net energy gain when exploiting patches. Am. Nat 2003, 161:777-793.
35. Vásquez R A. On the value of information: studying changes in patch assessment abilities through learning. Oikos 2006, 112:298-310.
36. Wilson W G. Complementary foraging behaviors allow coexistence of two consumers. Ecology 1999, 80:2358-2372.