Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition

  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

A technique for using patch giving up densities to investigate habitat preferences, predation risk, and interspecific competitive relationships is theoretically analyzed and empirically investigated. Giving up densities, the density of resources within a patch at which an individual ceases foraging, provide considerably more information than simply the amount of resources harvested. The giving up density of a forager, which is behaving optimally, should correspond to a harvest rate that just balances the metabolic costs of foraging, the predation cost of foraging, and the missed opportunity cost of not engaging in alternative activities. In addition, changes in giving up densities in response to climatic factors, predation risk, and missed opportunities can be used to test the model and to examine the consistency of the foragers' behavior. The technique was applied to a community of four Arizonan granivorous rodents (Perognathus amplus, Dipodomys merriami, Ammospermophilus harrisii, and Spermophilus tereticaudus). Aluminum trays filled with 3 grams of millet seeds mixed into 3 liters of sifted soil provided resource patches. The seeds remaining following a night or day of foraging were used to determine the giving up density, and footprints in the sifted sand indicated the identity of the forager. Giving up densities consistently differed in response to forager species, microhabitat (bush versus open), data, and station. The data also provide useful information regarding the relative foraging efficiencies and microhabitat preferences of the coexisting rodent species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramsky Z (1983) Experiments on seed predation by rodents and ants in the Israeli desert. Oecologia (Berlin) 57:328–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Baharv D, Rosenzweig ML (1985) Optimal foraging in Dorcas gazelles. J Arid Environ 9: 167–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky G (1978) Diet optimization of a generalist herbivore, the moose. Theor Pop Biol 14:105–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH (1971) Mechanisms of competitive exclusion between two species of chipmunk. Ecology 52: 305–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A, Whitham TG, Bond HW (1981) Competition between hummingbirds and insects for the nectar of two species of shrubs. Southwest Nat 26:133–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1986) Coexistence on a resource whose abundance varies: a test with desert rodents. Unpubl PhD Diss, Univ Arizona, Tucson

  • Brown JS (1988) The role of resource variability in structuring desert nodent communities. In: Morris D, Abramsky Z, Fox B (eds) Patterns in the structure of mammalian communities. Texas Tech Univ Press. Lubbock (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Rosenzweig ML (1986) Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J Theor Biol 123:151–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Caraco T (1979) Time budgeting and group size: a theory. Ecology 60:611–617

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Pop Biol 9:129–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheverton J, Kacelnik A, Krebs JR (1985) Optimal foraging: constraints and currencies. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds). Experimental behavioral ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang AC (1974) Fundamental methods of mathematical economics, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowie RJ (1977) Optimal foraging in the great tits (Parus major). Nature 268:137–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611–617

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinsinger P (1976) Organization of a tropical guild of nectarivorous birds. Ecol Monogr 46:257–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell SD, Lucas HL Jr (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye RJ, Rosenzweig ML (1980) Clump size selection: a field test with two species of Dipodomys. Oecologia (Berlin) 47:323–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubb TC, Greenwald L (1982) Sparrows and a brushpile — foraging responses to different combinations of predation risk and energy cost. Anim Behav 30:637–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartling LK, Plowright RC (1979) Foraging by bumblebees on patches of artificial flowers: a laboratory study. Can J Zool 57:1866–1870

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1979) Foraging strategies of caterpillars: Leaf damage and possible predator avoidance. Oecologia (Berlin) 42:325–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CM (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees-hunting by expectation. Anim Behav 29:1166–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:41–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Kotler BP (1987) Short-term apparent competition. Am Nat 130:412–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard SF, Cook RM (1978) Optimal foraging by parasitoid wasps. J Anim Ecol 47:593–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Ryan JC, Charnov EL (1974) Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging? A study of patch use by chickadees. Anim Behav 22:953–964

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Stephens DW, Sutherland WJ (1983) Perspectives in optimal foraging theory. In: Clark GA, Bush AH (eds) Perspectives in ornithology. Cambridge Univ Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis AR (1980) Patch use by grey squirrels and optimal foraging. Ecology 61:1371–1379

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency-predation — risk trade-offs in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R, Pianka E (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Mares MA, Rosenzweig ML (1978) Granivory in North and South American desert rodents. Ecology 49:235–241

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1986) The common currency for behavioral decisions. Am Nat 127:358–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1979) Evolutionarily stable feeding strategies in sticklebacks. Z Tierpsychol 51:36–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittlebach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML (1981) Competitors and habitat use. Oikos 37:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML, Mitchell W (1985) Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory. Ecology 66:798–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: Testing the marginal value theorem. Am Zool 18:739–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1980) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Calculation of net rate of energy intake and optimal patch use. Theor Pop Biol 17:232–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection. Proceedings of the 1st International Congress of Ecology, pp 401–404

  • Rosenzweig ML (1979) Optimal habitat selection in two-species competitive systems. Fortschr Zool 25:283–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1985) Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. In: Cody ML (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, New York, pp 517–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell RR, Wilkinson M (1979) Microeconomics. A synthesis of modern and neoclassical theory. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in whitethroated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65:1820–1827

    Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer WM, Jensen DB, Hobbs DE, Gurevitch J, Todd JR, Schaffer MV (1979) Competition, foraging energetics, and the cost of sociality in three species of bees. Ecology 60:976–987

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1985) The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am Nat 125:827–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend CR, Hildrew AG (1980) Foraging in a patchy environment by a predatory net-spinning caddis larva — a test of optimal foraging theory. Occologia (Berlin) 47:219–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance RR (1985) The stable coexistence of two competitors for one resource. Am Nat 126:72–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickery WL (1984) Optimal diet models and rodent food consumption. Anim Behav 32:340–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittlebach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitham TG (1977) Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: A last dreg theory. Science 197:593–596

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Joel S. Brown

    Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 60680, Chicago, IL, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, 85721, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Joel S. Brown

Authors
  1. Joel S. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, J.S. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22, 37–47 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395696

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395696

Keywords

Search

Navigation