Advertisement

How Important are Nutrient Constraints in Optimal Foraging Models or are Spatial/Temporal Factors More Important?

  • Gary E. Belovsky
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 20)

Abstract

Optimal foraging theory (henceforth called OFT) perhaps has achieved some of the greatest successes in quantitatively predicting observed patterns (i.e. diets) in nature, than any other ecological theory (Schoener 1986, Stephens and Krebs 1986). This is not to say that OFT has been accepted without reservation, nor that the predictive successes of the theory are unambiguous (Gray 1986, Pierce and Ollason 1987). Two major complaints about OFT studies have been espoused. First, predicted diets may not be as close to the observed values as implied by investigators. Second, investigators sometimes invoke post hoc explanations when predicted and observed values do not closely correspond.

Keywords

Diet Choice Optimal Forage Mule Deer Grasshopper Species Digestive Capacity 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Altman SA, Wagner SS (1978) A general model of optimal diet. In Chivers DJ, Herbert J (ed) Recent Advances in Primatology (Vol 1 ). Academic Press, London, p 407–414Google Scholar
  2. Bailey CG, Mukerji MK (1977) Energy dynamics of Melanoplus bivittatus and M. femurrubrum in a grassland ecosystem. Can Ent 109: 605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beal FEL (1900) Food of the bobolink, blackbirds, and grackles. Biol Surv Bull USDA #13Google Scholar
  4. Belovsky GE (1978) Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theor Pop Biol 14: 103–134Google Scholar
  5. Belovsky GE (1981) Food plant selection by a generalist herbivore: the moose.Google Scholar
  6. Ecology 62: 1020–1030Google Scholar
  7. Belovsky GE (1984a) Snowshoe hare optimal foraging and its implications forGoogle Scholar
  8. population dynamics. Theor Pop Biol 25: 235–264Google Scholar
  9. Belovsky GE (1984b) Summer diet optimization by beaver. Amer Midi Natur 111: 209– 222Google Scholar
  10. Belovsky GE (1984c) Herbivore optimal foraging: a comparative test of three models. Amer Natur 124: 97–115Google Scholar
  11. Belovsky GE (1986) Optimal foraging and community structure: implications for a guild of generalist grassland herbivores. Oecologia 70: 35–52Google Scholar
  12. Belovsky GE (1987a) Hunter-gatherer foraging: a linear programming approach. J Anthro Arch 6: 29–76Google Scholar
  13. Belovsky GE (1987b) Foraging and optimal body size: an overview, new data and a test of alternative models. J Theor Biol 129: 275–287Google Scholar
  14. Belovsky GE (1987c) An optimal foraging model for wild herbivores. In Rose M (ed) Herbivore Nutrition Research: Second International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores. Occasional Publication of the Australian Society of Animal Production, p 227Google Scholar
  15. Belovsky GE, Slade JB (1986) Time budgets of grassland herbivores: body size similarities. Oecologia 70: 53–62Google Scholar
  16. Belovsky GE, Slade JB (1987) The role of plant distributions on herbivore diet choice: a comparison of wild and domestic herbivores. In Rose M (ed) Herbivore Nutrition Research: Second International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores. Occasional Publication of the Australian Society of Animal Production, p 87Google Scholar
  17. Belovsky GE, Ritchie ME (in press) Geographical and seasonal variation in ground squirrel foraging. OecologiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Belovsky GE, Slade JB, Stockhoff BA (in press) Susceptibility to predation for different grasshoppers: an experimental study. EcologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Belovsky GE, Ritchie ME, Moorehead J (1989) Foraging in complex environments: when prey availability varies over time and space. Theor Pop BiolGoogle Scholar
  20. Bent AC (1958) Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, tanagers, and allies. Smithsonian Inst US Nat Mus Bull #211Google Scholar
  21. Clark L (1987) Thermal constraints on foraging in adult european starlings. Oecologia 71: 233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gartshore RG, Brooks RJ, Somers JD, Gilbert FF (1979) Temporal changes in gullet food passage in penned red-winged blackbirds: significance for research in feeding ecology. Can JZool57: 1592–1596Google Scholar
  23. Golley F (1961) Energy values of ecological materials. Ecology 42: 581–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray RD (1986) Faith and foraging: a critique of the “paradigm argument from design”. In Kamil AC, Krebs JR, Pulliam HR (ed) Foraging behavior. Plenum Press, New York, p 69Google Scholar
  25. Hill K (1988) Macronutrient modifications of optimal foraging theory: an approach using indifference curves applied to some modern foragers. Human Ecology 16: 157–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Intriligator, MD (1971) Mathematical optimization and economic theory. Columbia Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Karasov WH (1985) Nutrient constraints in the feeding ecology of an omnivore in a seasonal environment. Oecologia 66: 280–290Google Scholar
  28. Krebs JR, Avery Ml (1984) Chick growth and prey quality in the european bee-eater. Oecologia 64: 363–368Google Scholar
  29. Lustick S (1970) Energetics and water regulation in the cowbird. Physiol. Zool. 43: 270–287Google Scholar
  30. Pierce GJ, Ollason JG (1987) Eight reasons why optimal foraging theory is a complete waste of time. Oikos 49: 111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pulliam HR (1975) Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. Amer Natur 109: 765–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pulliam HR (1980) Do chipping sparrows forage optimally? Ardea 68: 75–82Google Scholar
  33. Ritchie ME (1988) Individual variation in the ability of Columbian ground squirrels to select an optimal diet. Evol Ecol 2: 232–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritchie ME (in press) Optimal foraging and fitness in Columbian ground squirrels. OecologiaGoogle Scholar
  35. Robbins CT (1983) Wildlife nutrition. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Schoener TW(1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2: 369–404Google Scholar
  37. Schoener TW (1986) A brief history of optimal foraging theory. In Kamil AC, Krebs JR,Google Scholar
  38. Pulliam HR (ed) Foraging behavior. Plenum Press, New York, pGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmitz O (submitted) Optimal diet selection by white-tailed deer: responses to environmental change. J Wildl Mgmt Sorensen AE (1984) Nutrition, energy and passage time: experiments with fruit preference in european blackbirds. J Anim Ecol 53: 545–557Google Scholar
  40. Spalinger DE (1980) Mule deer habitat evaluation based upon nutritional modelling. MA Thesis, University of Nevada, RenoGoogle Scholar
  41. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  42. Tanaka J (1976) Subsistence ecology of Central Kalahari San. In Lee RB, De Vore I (ed) Kalahari hunter-gatherers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p 98Google Scholar
  43. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  44. Westoby M (1974) An analysis of diet selection by large generalist herbivores. Amer Natur 112: 627–631Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary E. Belovsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology and School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations