State-dependent Bayesian foraging on spatially autocorrelated food distributions

Oikos

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 237-244

  van Gils, Jan A ^a,b  

^a ROYAL NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR SEA RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^b NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY NIOO KNAW   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOCORRELATION; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CRYPSIS; DECISION MAKING; ENERGY BUDGET; FOOD AVAILABILITY; PATCH DYNAMICS; PREY AVAILABILITY; PREY CAPTURE; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; SURVIVAL;

EID: 77952923310     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17497.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Arditi R, Dacorogna B. Optimal foraging on arbitrary food distributions and the definition of habitat patches. Am. Nat 1988, 131:837-846.
2. Bell W J. Searching behaviour: the behavioural ecology of finding resources 1991, Chapman and Hall
3. Benhamou S. Efficiency of area-concentrated searching behaviour in a continuous patchy environment. J. Theor. Biol 1992, 159:67-81.
4. Benhamou S. How many animals really do the Lévy walk? Ecology 2007, 88:1962-1969.
5. Brodin A. Theoretical models of adaptive energy management in small wintering birds. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2007, 362:1857-1871.
6. Brown J S. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk and competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol 1988, 22:37-48.
7. Brown J S. Patch use under predation risk: II. A test with fox squirrels, Sciurus niger. Ann. Zool. Fenn 1992, 29:311-318.
8. Charnov E L. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor. Popul. Biol 1976, 9:129-136.
9. Clark C W, Mangel M. Dynamic state variable models in ecology 2000, Oxford Univ. Press
10. Curio E. The ethology of predation 1976, Springer
11. Dias M P. Searching behaviour of foraging waders: does feeding success influence their walking? Anim. Behav 2009, 77:1203-1209.
12. Fortin D. Optimal searching behaviour: the value of sampling information. Ecol. Modell 2002, 153:279-290.
13. Green R F. A simpler, more general method of finding the optimal foraging strategy for Bayesian birds. Oikos 2006, 112:274-284.
14. Haining R. Spatial data analysis: theory and practice 2003, Cambridge Univ. Press
15. Houston A I, McNamara J M. Models of adaptive behaviour 1999, Cambridge Univ. Press
16. Iwasa Y. Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am. Nat 1981, 117:710-723.
17. Kacelnik A, Bernstein C. Optimal foraging and arbitrary food distributions: patch models gain a lease of life. Trends Ecol. Evol 1988, 3:251-253.
18. Klaassen R H G. Optimal movement between patches under incomplete information about the spatial distribution of food items. Theor. Popul. Biol 2006, 70:452-463.
19. Klaassen R H G. Prior knowledge about spatial pattern affects patch assessment rather than movement between patches in tactile-feeding mallard. J. Anim. Ecol 2007, 76:20-29.
20. Knoppien P, Reddingius J. Predators with two modes of searching: a mathematical model. J. Theor. Biol 1985, 114:273-301.
21. Kotler B P. Patch use by gerbils in a risky environment: manipulating food and safety to test four models. Oikos 1997, 78:274-282.
22. Kraan C. Landscape-scale experiment demonstrates that Wadden Sea intertidal flats are used to capacity by molluscivore migrant shorebirds. J. Anim. Ecol 2009, 78:1259-1268.
23. Krakauer D C, Rodríguez-Gironés M A. Searching and learning in a random environment. J. Theor. Biol 1995, 177:417-429.
24. MacArthur R H. Geographical ecology 1972, Harper and Row
25. Mangel M, Adler F R. Construction of multidimensional clustered patterns. Ecology 1994, 75:1289-1298.
26. McNamara J M. Optimal patch use in a stochastic environment. Theor. Popul. Biol 1982, 21:269-288.
27. Nolet B A, Mooij W M. Search path of swans on spatially autocorrelated tubers. J. Anim. Ecol 2002, 71:451-462.
28. Oaten A. Optimal foraging in patches: a case for stochasticity. Theor. Popul. Biol 1977, 12:263-285.
29. Olsson O. Bayesian foraging with only two patch types. Oikos 2006, 112:285-297.
30. Olsson O, Holmgren N M A. The survival-rate-maximizing policy for Bayesian foragers: wait for good news. Behav. Ecol 1998, 9:345-353.
31. Olsson O, Holmgren N M A. Gaining ecological information about Bayesian foragers through their behaviour. I. Models with predictions. Oikos 1999, 87:251-263.
32. 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.
33. Olsson O, Brown J S. The foraging benefits of information and the penalty of ignorance. Oikos 2006, 112:260-273.
34. Olsson O, Brown J S. Smart, smarter, smartest: foraging information states and coexistence. Oikos 2010, 119:292-303.
35. Olsson O. Gaining ecological information about Bayesian foragers through their behaviour. II. A field test with woodpeckers. Oikos 1999, 87:264-276.
36. Olsson O. Long-term and short-term state-dependent foraging under predation risk: an indication of habitat quality. Anim. Behav 2002, 63:981-989.
37. Pierre J-S, Green R F. A Bayesian approach to optimal foraging in parasitoids. Behavioral ecology of insect parasitoids: from theoretical approaches to field applications 2007, 357-383. Wajnberg E, Wiley-Blackwell
38. Piersma T. Cost-benefit analysis of mollusc-eating in a shorebird. I. Foraging and processing costs estimated by the doubly labelled water method. J. Exp. Biol 2003, 206:3361-3368.
39. Piersma T. Holling's functional response model as a tool to link the food-finding mechanism of a probing shorebird with its spatial distribution. J. Anim. Ecol 1995, 64:493-504.
40. Smith J N M. The food searching behaviour of two European thrushes. I. Description and analysis of search paths. Behaviour 1974, 48:276-302.
41. Solow A R. Power laws without complexity. Ecol. Lett 2005, 8:361-363.
42. Sparrow A D. A heterogeneity of heterogeneities. Trends Ecol. Evol 1999, 14:422-423.
43. Stephens D W, Krebs J R. Foraging theory 1986, Princeton Univ. Press
44. Tinbergen N. An experiment on spacing out as a defence against predation. Behaviour 1967, 28:307-320.
45. Vahl W K. The mechanisms of interference competition: two experiments on foraging waders. Behav. Ecol 2005, 16:845-855.
46. Valone T J. From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol 2007, 62:1-14.
47. Valone T J, Brown J S. Measuring patch assessment abilities of desert granivores. Ecology 1989, 70:1800-1810.
48. van den Hout P J. Differential mortality of wintering shorebirds on the Banc d'Arguin, Mauritania, due to predation by large falcons. Ibis 2008, 150:S219-S230.
49. van Gils J A, Piersma T. Digestively constrained predators evade the cost of interference competition. J. Anim. Ecol 2004, 73:386-398.
50. 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.
51. van Gils J A. Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. I. Prey choice. J. Anim. Ecol 2005, 74:105-119.
52. van Gils J A. Foraging in a tidally structured environment by red knots (Calidris canutus): ideal, but not free. Ecology 2006, 87:1189-1202.
53. Viswanathan G M. Optimizing the success of random searches. Nature 1999, 401:911-914.
54. Waage J K. Foraging for patchily distributed hosts by the parasitoid, Nemeritus canescens. J. Anim. Ecol 1979, 48:353-371.
55. Wiersma P, Piersma T. Effects of microhabitat, flocking, climate and migratory goal on energy expenditure in the annual cycle of red knots. Condor 1994, 96:257-279.