Zebra finches in poor condition produce more and consume more food in a producer-scrounger game

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 174-180

  David, Morgan ^a,b   Giraldeau, Luc Alain ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BOURGOGNE   (France)

Author keywords

bootstrap; decision rules; food intake; residual body mass; scramble competition; variance sensitive foraging

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; BODY CONDITION; BODY MASS; BOOTSTRAPPING; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOOD CONSUMPTION; FOOD INTAKE; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; GROUP SIZE; INDIVIDUAL VARIATION; METABOLISM; PASSERINE; PRODUCER-SCROUNGER INTERACTION; SCRAMBLE COMPETITION;

ANIMALIA; AVES; TAENIOPYGIA GUTTATA;

EID: 84555204625     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arr171     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 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.
2. Barta Z, Giraldeau LA. 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.
3. Barta Z, Giraldeau LA. 2000. Daily patterns of optimal producer and scrounger use under predation hazard: a state-dependent dynamic game analysis. Am Nat. 155:570-582.
4. Barta Z, Liker A, Mónus F. 2004. The effects of predation risk on the use of social foraging tactics. Anim Behav. 67:301-308.
5. Bateson M. 2002. Recent advances in our understanding of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Proc Nutr Soc. 61:509-516.
6. Beauchamp G. 2001. Consistency and flexibility in the scrounging behaviour of zebra finches. Can J Zool. 79:540-544.
7. Beauchamp G. 2006. Phenotypic correlates of scrounging behavior in zebra finches: role of foraging efficiency and dominance. Ethology. 112:873-878.
8. Bercovitch FB, Nurnberg P. 1996. Socioendocrine and morphological correlates of paternity in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). J Reprod Fertil. 107:59-68.
9. Biro PA, Stamps JA. 2010. Do consistent individual differences in metabolic rate promote consistent individual differences in behavior? Trends Ecol Evol. 25:653-659.
10. Caraco T. 1980. On foraging time allocation in a stochastic environment. Ecology. 61:119-128.
11. Coolen I. 2002. Increasing foraging group size increases scrounger use and reduces searching efficiency in nutmeg manikins (Lonchura punctulata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 52:232-238.
12. Coolen I, Giraldeau LA, Lavoie M. 2001. Head position as an indicator of producer and scrounger tactics in a ground-feeding bird. Anim Behav. 61:895-903.
13. Dall SRX, Houston AI, McNamara JM. 2004. The behavioural ecology of personality: consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective. Ecol Lett. 7:734-739.
14. Dall SRX, Witter MS. 1998. Feeding interruptions, diurnal mass changes and daily routines of behaviour in the zebra finch. Anim Behav. 55:715-725.
15. David M, Auclair Y, Cézilly F. 2011. Personality predicts social dominance in female zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata, in a feeding context. Anim Behav. 81:219-224.
16. David M, Cézilly F, Giraldeau LA. 2011. Personality affects zebra finch feeding success in a producer-scrounger game. Anim Behav. 82:61-67.
17. Giraldeau LA, Caraco T. 2000. Social foraging theory. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
18. Giraldeau LA, Hogan JA, Clinchy MJ. 1990. The payoffs to producing and scrounging: what happens when patches are divisible? Ethology. 85:132-146.
19. Gross MR. 1996. Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:92-98.
20. Kacelnik A, Bateson M. 1996. Risky theories-the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am Zool. 36:402-434.
21. Katsnelson E, Motro U, Feldman MW, Lotem A. 2011. Individual-learning ability predicts social-foraging strategy in house sparrows. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 278:582-589.
22. Ĺendvai AZ, Barta Z, Liker A. 2004. The effect of energy reserves on social foraging: hungry sparrows scrounge more. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271:2467-2472.
23. Ĺendvai AZ, Barta Z, Liker A. 2006. The effects of energy reserves and dominance on the use of social-foraging strategies in the house sparrow. Anim Behav. 72:747-752.
24. Lessells CM, Boag PT. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk. 104:116-121.
25. Liker A, Barta Z. 2002. The effects of dominance on social foraging tactic use in house sparrows. Behaviour. 139:1061-1076.
26. Mart́ýnez-Lendech N, Córdoba-Aguilar A, Serrano-Meneses MA. 2007. Body size and fat reserves as possible predictors of male territorial status and contest outcome in the butterfly Eumaeus toxea Godart (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). J Ethol. 25:195-199.
27. Mathot KJ, Giraldeau LA. 2010. Family-related differences in social foraging tactic use in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 64:1805-1811.
28. Mathot KJ, Godde S, Careau V, Thomas DW, Giraldeau LA. 2009. Testing dynamic variance-sensitive foraging using individual differences in basal metabolic rates of zebra finches. Oikos. 118: 545-552.
29. Maynard Smith J. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Morand-Ferron J, Varennes E, Giraldeau LA. 2011. Individual differences in plasticity and sampling when playing behavioural games. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 278:1223-1230.
31. Mottley K, Giraldeau LA. 2000. Experimental evidence that group foragers can converge on predicted producer-scrounger equilibria. Anim Behav. 60:341-350.
32. Pärt T, Qvarnström A. 1997. Badge size in collared flycatchers predicts outcome of male competition over territories. Anim Behav. 54:893-899.
33. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available from: http://www.R-project. org (Accessed 02 January 2011).
34. Schamber JL, Esler D, Flint PL. 2009. Evaluating the validity of using unverified indices of body condition. J Avian Biol. 40:49-56.
35. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Zinner B, Millar JS, Hickling GJ. 2005. Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology. 86:155-163.
36. Stephens DW. 1981. The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim Behav. 29:628-629.
37. Swain SD. 1992. Flight muscle catabolism during overnight fasting in a passerine bird, Eremophila alpestris. J Comp Physiol B. 162:383-392.
38. Vickery WL, Giraldeau LA, Templeton JJ, Kramer DL, Chapman CA. 1991. Producers, scroungers, and group foraging. Am Nat. 137:847-863.
39. Wu GM, Giraldeau LA. 2005. Risky decisions: a test of risk sensitivity in socially foraging flocks of Lonchura punctulata. Behav Ecol. 16:8-14.
40. Zann RA. 1996. The zebra finch-a synthesis of field and laboratory studies. Oxford: Oxford ornithology series.