Author
Listed:
- Kimberley J. Mathot
- Luc-Alain Giraldeau
Abstract
When animals forage in groups, individuals can search for food themselves (producer tactic) or they can search for and join other individuals that have located food (scrounger tactic). The scrounger tactic may provide greater antipredator benefits than the producer tactic because "scroungers" hop with their heads up and tend to occupy central positions in a group, whereas "producers" hop with their heads down and tend to occupy edge positions. We tested whether increasing an individual's vulnerability to predation (using wing-loading manipulations) causes an increased preference for the scrounger tactic in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Wing-loading manipulations were effective at increasing focal individuals' perception of vulnerability to predation; treatment individuals increased their total time allocated to vigilance, whereas control individuals did not. Treatment individuals also increased their use of the scrounger tactic (proportion of hops with head up) and scrounged a greater proportion of patches, whereas control individuals exhibited no changes. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the scrounger tactic confers greater antipredator benefits than the producer tactic, although whether antipredator benefits are achieved through differences in head orientation, spatial position, or both, remains unclear. Our finding that individuals adjust their use of the scrounger tactic according to changes in their phenotype provides evidence for phenotype-limited allocation strategies in producer--scrounger games. Copyright 2008, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Kimberley J. Mathot & Luc-Alain Giraldeau, 2008.
"Increasing vulnerability to predation increases preference for the scrounger foraging tactic,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(1), pages 131-138.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:1:p:131-138
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:1:p:131-138. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.