Journal of Ethology

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 49–55 | Cite as

Simulation of patch use by monkeys using operant conditioning

  • Naoki Agetsuma


Food patch use by Japanese monkeys was examined using an operant conditioning procedure. Modified progressive ratio schedules, in which the probability of reinforcement decreases exponentially with the number of bar presses, were presented to 2 Japanese monkeys. Two types of schedule were used in each experimental session. One represented high quality food patches, where the probability of reinforcement was twice as high as in the other, which represented low quality food patches. The number of bar presses in each food patch was counted. Monkeys responded more frequently in high quality patches. The probability of reinforcement for the last response in each patch was the same in both types of schedule. The number of responses increased with a decrease in the occurrence of high quality patches, and with an increase in the inter-patch time interval. These results are in agreement with the predictions of Charnov’s marginal value theorem (Charnov, 1976). The pattern of patch use by monkeys observed in this study is discussed in terms of optimal foraging strategy.


Primatol Food Patch Japanese Monkey Progressive Ratio Schedule Quality Patch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agetsuma, N. 1995 Foraging strategies of Yakushima macaques (Macaca fuscata yakui).Int. J. Primatol. 16: 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, M.F. 1993 Sequential and simultaneous choice processes in the radial-arm maze. In: T.R. Zentall (ed.)Animal cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, New Jersey, pp. 153–173.Google Scholar
  3. Charnov, E.L. 1976 Optimal foraging: marginal value theorem.Theoretical Popul. Biol. 9: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cowie, R.J. 1977 Optimal foraging in great tits (Parus major).Nature 268: 137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fantino, E., N. Abarca & M. Ito 1987 Choice and optimal foraging: tests of the delay-reduction hypothesis and the optimal-diet model. In: A.C. Kamil, J.R. Krebs and H.R. Pulliam (eds.)Foraging behavior. Plenum, New York, pp. 181–207.Google Scholar
  6. Fleagle, J.G. 1988 Primate adaptation and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  7. Harrison, M.J.S. 1984 Optimal foraging strategies in the diet of green monkey,Cercopithecus sabaeus, at Mt. Assirik, Senegal.Int. J. Primatol. 5: 435–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gautier-Hion, A., J.P. Gautier & R. Quris 1981 Forest structure and fruit availability as complementary factors influencing habitat use by a troop of monkeys (Cercopithecus cephus).Rev. Ecol. (Terre et Vie) 35: 511–536.Google Scholar
  9. Grether, G.F., R.A. Palombit & P.S. Rodman 1992 Gibbon foraging decisions and the marginal value model.Int. J. Primatol. 13: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iwasa, Y., M. Higashi & N. Yamamura 1981 Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal strategy.Amer. Nat. 117: 710–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kacelnik, A. 1984 Central place foraging in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) I: Patch residence time.J. Anim. Ecol. 53: 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kacelnik, A. & I.C. Cuthill 1987 Starlings and optimal foraging theory: modeling in a fractal world. In: A.C. Kamil, J.R. Krebs and H.R. Pulliam (eds.)Foraging behavior. Plenum, New York, pp. 303–333.Google Scholar
  13. Kacelnik, A., A.I. Houston & J.R. Krebs 1981 Optimal foraging and territorial defense in the great tits (Parus major).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8: 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krebs, J.R., J.C. Ryan & E. Charnov 1974 Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging?: a study of patch use by chickadees.Anim. Behav. 22 : 953–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McFarland, D. 1985 Animal Behaviour. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  16. McNamara, J.M. & A.I. Houston 1987 Foraging in patches: There is more to life than the marginal value theorem. In: M.L. Commons, A. Kacelnik and A.J. Shettleworth (eds.)Quantitative analyses of behavior, Foraging. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, New Jersey, pp. 23–39.Google Scholar
  17. Mellgren, R.L. & S.W. Brown 1987 Environmental constraints on optimal-foraging behavior. In: M.L. Commons, A. Kacelnik and A.J. Shettlewoth (eds.)Quantitative analyses of behavior, Foraging. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, New Jersey, pp. 133–151.Google Scholar
  18. Nakagawa, N. 1991 Decisions on time allocation to different food patches by Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata).Primates 31: 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shettleworth, S. 1987 Learning and foraging in pigeons: effects of handling time and changing food availability on patch choice. In: A.C. Kamil, J.R. Krebs and H.R. Pulliam (eds.)Foraging behavior. Plenum, New York, pp. 115–132.Google Scholar
  20. Pyke, G.H. 1981 Honeyeater foraging: A test of optimal foraging theory.Anim. Behav. 29: 878–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yanagihara, Y., K. Matsubayashi & T. Matsuzawa 1994 Environmental enrichment in Japanese monkeys: feeding device and cage environment.Primate Res. 10: 95–104 (in Japanese with English summary).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAkita University of Economics and LawShimokitate-Sakura, AkitaJapan

Personalised recommendations