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.
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
Baharv D, Rosenzweig ML (1985) Optimal foraging in Dorcas gazelles. J Arid Environ 9: 167–171
Belovsky G (1978) Diet optimization of a generalist herbivore, the moose. Theor Pop Biol 14:105–134
Brown JH (1971) Mechanisms of competitive exclusion between two species of chipmunk. Ecology 52: 305–311
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
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)
Brown JS, Rosenzweig ML (1986) Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J Theor Biol 123:151–171
Caraco T (1979) Time budgeting and group size: a theory. Ecology 60:611–617
Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Pop Biol 9:129–136
Cheverton J, Kacelnik A, Krebs JR (1985) Optimal foraging: constraints and currencies. In: Hölldobler B, Lindauer M (eds). Experimental behavioral ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass
Chiang AC (1974) Fundamental methods of mathematical economics, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York
Cowie RJ (1977) Optimal foraging in the great tits (Parus major). Nature 268:137–139
Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611–617
Feinsinger P (1976) Organization of a tropical guild of nectarivorous birds. Ecol Monogr 46:257–291
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
Frye RJ, Rosenzweig ML (1980) Clump size selection: a field test with two species of Dipodomys. Oecologia (Berlin) 47:323–327
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
Hartling LK, Plowright RC (1979) Foraging by bumblebees on patches of artificial flowers: a laboratory study. Can J Zool 57:1866–1870
Heinrich B (1979) Foraging strategies of caterpillars: Leaf damage and possible predator avoidance. Oecologia (Berlin) 42:325–337
Hodges CM (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees-hunting by expectation. Anim Behav 29:1166–1171
Hodges CM, Wolf LL (1981) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:41–44
Holt RD, Kotler BP (1987) Short-term apparent competition. Am Nat 130:412–430
Hubbard SF, Cook RM (1978) Optimal foraging by parasitoid wasps. J Anim Ecol 47:593–604
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
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
Lewis AR (1980) Patch use by grey squirrels and optimal foraging. Ecology 61:1371–1379
Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging-efficiency-predation — risk trade-offs in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165
MacArthur R, Pianka E (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609
Mares MA, Rosenzweig ML (1978) Granivory in North and South American desert rodents. Ecology 49:235–241
McNamara JM, Houston AI (1986) The common currency for behavioral decisions. Am Nat 127:358–378
Milinski M (1979) Evolutionarily stable feeding strategies in sticklebacks. Z Tierpsychol 51:36–40
Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644
Mittlebach GG (1981) Foraging efficiency and body size: a study of optimal diet and habitat use by bluegills. Ecology 62:1370–1386
Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML (1981) Competitors and habitat use. Oikos 37:1–6
Pimm SL, Rosenzweig ML, Mitchell W (1985) Competition and food selection: field tests of a theory. Ecology 66:798–807
Pyke GH (1978) Optimal foraging in hummingbirds: Testing the marginal value theorem. Am Zool 18:739–752
Pyke GH (1980) Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Calculation of net rate of energy intake and optimal patch use. Theor Pop Biol 17:232–246
Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575
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
Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335
Rosenzweig ML (1985) Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. In: Cody ML (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, New York, pp 517–540
Russell RR, Wilkinson M (1979) Microeconomics. A synthesis of modern and neoclassical theory. Wiley, New York
Schneider KJ (1984) Dominance, predation, and optimal foraging in whitethroated sparrow flocks. Ecology 65:1820–1827
Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043
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
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif
Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton
Tilman D (1985) The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am Nat 125:827–852
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
Vance RR (1985) The stable coexistence of two competitors for one resource. Am Nat 126:72–86
Vickery WL (1984) Optimal diet models and rodent food consumption. Anim Behav 32:340–348
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
Whitham TG (1977) Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: A last dreg theory. Science 197:593–596
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395696