Author
Listed:
- Robert J. Thomas
- Tracey A. King
- Hannah E. Forshaw
- Nicola M. Marples
- Michael P. Speed
- Joanne Cable
Abstract
Foragers continually encounter new objects in their environment, some being potential food. Sampling new food resources carries risks of poisoning or injury and can reduce foraging efficiency. Foragers typically show a brief aversion to novel objects (neophobia). An additional persistent wariness of novel foods, termed dietary conservatism (DC), has been described only in birds and is exhibited by only a proportion of individuals in each of the populations studied so far. The rest of the individuals in each population are relatively adventurous consumers (AC), eating novel foods as soon as their neophobia has been overcome. The presence of DC foragers is important because it may alter the selection pressures on novel types of prey. We demonstrate both AC and DC in a previously untested predator taxon, fish (specifically, the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus). The fish showed sufficient avoidance of novel prey colors to allow these prey to spread in 33% of prey populations, from being rare (5% of prey phenotypes) to fixation (100%). In the remaining prey populations, the novel morph became extinct. Numerical simulation models based on these empirical studies showed that the success of the novel color morph (independent of the color used) was best explained by DC rather than by drift or apostatic selection. This study provides the first evidence of AC and DC foraging strategies in fish, demonstrating that this phenomenon is not restricted to birds and suggesting that this mixture of strategies might be a more general feature of foragers than was previously appreciated. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Robert J. Thomas & Tracey A. King & Hannah E. Forshaw & Nicola M. Marples & Michael P. Speed & Joanne Cable, 2010.
"The response of fish to novel prey: evidence that dietary conservatism is not restricted to birds,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(4), pages 669-675.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2010:i:4:p:669-675
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:21:y:2010:i:4:p:669-675. 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.