Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes

Eccard JA, Liesenjohann T (2008)
PLoS ONE 3(10).

Journal Article | Published | English

No fulltext has been uploaded

Author
;
Abstract
Behaviour is shaped by evolution as to maximise fitness by balancing gains and risks. Models on decision making in biology, psychology or economy have investigated choices among options which differ in gain and/or risk. Meanwhile, there are decision contexts with uniform risk distributions where options are not differing in risk while the overall risk level may be high. Adequate predictions for the emerging investment patterns in risk uniformity are missing. Here we use foraging behaviour as a model for decision making. While foraging, animals often titrate food and safety from predation and prefer safer foraging options over riskier ones. Risk uniformity can occur when habitat structures are uniform, when predators are omnipresent or when predators are ideal-free distributed in relation to prey availability. However, models and empirical investigations on optimal foraging have mainly investigated choices among options with different predation risks. Based on the existing models on local decision making in risk-heterogeneity we test predictions extrapolated to a landscape level with uniform risk distribution. We compare among landscapes with different risk levels. If the uniform risk is low, local decisions on the marginal value of an option should lead to an equal distribution of foraging effort. If the uniform risk is high, foraging should be concentrated on few options, due to a landscape-wide reduction of the value of missed opportunity costs of activities other than foraging. We provide experimental support for these predictions using foraging small mammals in artificial, risk uniform landscapes. In high risk uniform landscapes animals invested their foraging time in fewer options and accepted lower total returns, compared to their behaviour in low risk-uniform landscapes. The observed trade off between gain and risk, demonstrated here for food reduction and safety increase, may possibly apply also to other contexts of economic decision making.
Publishing Year
ISSN
PUB-ID

Cite this

Eccard JA, Liesenjohann T. Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(10).
Eccard, J. A., & Liesenjohann, T. (2008). Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes. PLoS ONE, 3(10).
Eccard, J. A., and Liesenjohann, T. (2008). Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes. PLoS ONE 3.
Eccard, J.A., & Liesenjohann, T., 2008. Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes. PLoS ONE, 3(10).
J.A. Eccard and T. Liesenjohann, “Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes”, PLoS ONE, vol. 3, 2008.
Eccard, J.A., Liesenjohann, T.: Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes. PLoS ONE. 3, (2008).
Eccard, Jana Anja, and Liesenjohann, Thilo. “Foraging Decisions in Risk-Uniform Landscapes”. PLoS ONE 3.10 (2008).
This data publication is cited in the following publications:
This publication cites the following data publications:

5 Citations in Europe PMC

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.

State-dependent foraging: lactating voles adjust their foraging behavior according to the presence of a potential nest predator and season.
Liesenjohann T, Liesenjohann M, Trebaticka L, Sundell J, Haapakoski M, Ylonen H, Eccard JA., Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. (Print) 69(5), 2015
PMID: 25926712
Integrating movement ecology with biodiversity research - exploring new avenues to address spatiotemporal biodiversity dynamics.
Jeltsch F, Bonte D, Pe'er G, Reineking B, Leimgruber P, Balkenhol N, Schroder B, Buchmann CM, Mueller T, Blaum N, Zurell D, Bohning-Gaese K, Wiegand T, Eccard JA, Hofer H, Reeg J, Eggers U, Bauer S., Mov Ecol 1(1), 2013
PMID: 25709820
Foraging under uniform risk from different types of predators.
Liesenjohann T, Eccard JA., BMC Ecol. 8(), 2008
PMID: 19068146

17 References

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.


Barnard C., 2004
Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition.
Brown J., 1988
A theoretical investigation of the effect of predators on foraging behaviour and energy reserves.
McNamara J, Barta Z, Houston A, Race P., 2005
Titrating food and safety in a heterogeneous environment: When are the risky and safe patches of equal value?
Kotler B, Blaustein L., 1995
Microhabitat use, giving-up densities and temporal activity as short- and long-term anti-predator behaviors in common voles.
Jacob J, Brown J., 2000
Apprehension and time allocation in gerbils: The effects of predatory risk and energetic state.
Kotler B, Brown J, Bouskila A., 2004
Building on the ideal free distribution.
Tregenza T., 1995
On the missed opportunity cost,GUD, and estimating environmental quality.
Olsson O, Molokwu M., 2008
Optimally foraging mice match patch use with habitat differences in fitness.
Morris D, Davidson D., 2000
Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem.
Charnov EL., Theor Popul Biol 9(2), 1976
PMID: 1273796
Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation.
Brown J, Kotler B., 2004
Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone National Park, USA.
Laundre J, Hernandez L, Altendorf K., 2001
Opportunity-cost foraging models for stationary and mobile predators.
Winterhalder B., 1983
Body size-dependent refuges in voles: an alternative explanation of the Chitty effect.
Sundell J, Norrdahl K., 2002
Effects of stoat's presence and auditory cues indicating its presence on tree seedling predation by meadow voles.
Pusenius J, Ostfeld R., 2000
Foraging patterns of voles at heterogeneous avian and uniform mustelid predation risk.
Eccard JA, Pusenius J, Sundell J, Halle S, Ylonen H., Oecologia 157(4), 2008
PMID: 18648858
Ranges6 v1.2: For the analysis of tracking and location data.
Kenward RE, South AB, Walls SS., 2003

Export

0 Marked Publications

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

View record in Web of Science®

Sources

PMID: 18927615
PubMed | Europe PMC

Search this title in

Google Scholar