Food Requirement and Risk-Sensitive Foraging in Shortfall Minimizers

  • C. J. Barnard
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 20)


Risk-sensitive foraging, generally characterized as the response of predators to variance in food reward (see Stephens and Krebs 1986) in choosing where and what to eat, is now well-established both in theory and empirically (see Stephens and Krebs 1986, Real and Caraco 1986 for recent reviews). While foraging models incorporating risk-sensitivity have been applied to a number of foraging situations (Real and Caraco 1986), the commonest scenario involves a high energy demand predator which risks starvation if there is a shortfall in its food supply. If such a predator makes foraging decisions so as to minimize the probability of a shortfall, reward variance is likely to be an important criterion on which decisions are based (e.g. Caraco 1981, Stephens 1981, McNamara and Houston 1982, Stephens and Paton 1984). In this paper, I look at some of the circumstances in which shortfalls and risk-sensitive choices might be expected, and at the evidence that such choices are made by predators. I also look at the effect of risk-sensitivity in foraging on decisions in other life history contexts.


Europe Perforation Defend 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barnard C J, Brown C A J (1985a) Risk-sensitivity in foraging common shrews (Sorex araneus L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16, p. 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard C J, Brown C A J (1985b) Competition affects risk- sensitivity in foraging shrews. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16, p. 379–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard C J, Brown C A J (1987) Risk-sensitive foraging and patch stay time in common shrews, Sorex araneus L. Anim Behav 35, p. 1255–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnard C J, Brown C A J, Gray-Wallis J (1983) Time and energy budgets and competition in the common shrew (Sorex araneus L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13, p. 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnard C J, Brown C A J, Houston, A I, McNamara, J M (1985) Risk-sensitive foraging in common shrews: an interruption model and the effects of mean and variance in reward rate. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18, p. 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caraco T (1981) Energy budgets, risk and foraging preferences in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hvemalis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8, p. 213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caraco T (1983) White-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrvs): foraging preferences in a risky environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12, p. 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caraco T, Chasin M (1984) Foraging preferences: response to reward skew. Anim Behav 32, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caraco T, Lima S L (1985) Foraging juncos: interaction of reward mean and variability. Anim Behav 33, p. 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caraco T, Martindale, S, Whittam, T S (1980) AnGoogle Scholar
  11. empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Anim Behav 28, p. 820–830.Google Scholar
  12. Clayton H (1989) Risk-sensitive foraging in bitterlings. Unpubl BSc Thesis, Univ Nottingham.Google Scholar
  13. Maitland P S (1977) Freshwater Fishes of Britain and Europe. Hamlyn, London.Google Scholar
  14. Marshall N B (1965) The Life of Fishes. Weidenfeld, London, and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  15. McCleery R H (1978) Optimal behaviour sequences and decisionmaking. In: ( J.R. Krebs & N.B. Davies eds) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, p. 377–410. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. McNamara J M, Houston, A I (1982) Short-term behaviour and life-time fitness. In: ( D.J. McFarland ed) Functional Ontogeny, p. 60–87. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  17. Real L A, Caraco T (1986) Risk and foraging inGoogle Scholar
  18. stochastic environments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 17, p. 371– 390.Google Scholar
  19. Stephens D W, Charnov E L (1982) Optimal foraging: some simple stochastic models. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol 10, p. 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stephens D W, Krebs J R (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  21. Stephens D W, Paton S R (1984) How constant is theGoogle Scholar
  22. constant of risk-aversion? Anim. Behav. 34, p. 1659– 1667.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas G, Kacelnik A, van der Meulen J (1985) The three- spined stickleback and the two-armed bandit. Behaviour 93, p. 227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Waddington K D, Allen T, Heinrich B (1981) FloralGoogle Scholar
  25. preferences of bumblebees (ftombus edwardsii) in relation to intermittent versus continuous rewards. Anim Behav 29, p. 779–784.Google Scholar
  26. Young R J, Clayton H, Barnard C J (in press) Risk-sensitive foraging in bitterlings (Rhodeus sericus): effects of food requirement, and breeding site quality. Anim Behav.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. J. Barnard
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of ZoologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations