Food Requirement and Risk-Sensitive Foraging in Shortfall Minimizers

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Europe Perforation Defend 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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