IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0187167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk of predation makes foragers less choosy about their food

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Charalabidis
  • François-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont
  • Sandrine Petit
  • David A Bohan

Abstract

Animals foraging in the wild have to balance speed of decision making and accuracy of assessment of a food item’s quality. If resource quality is important for maximizing fitness, then the duration of decision making may be in conflict with other crucial and time consuming tasks, such as anti-predator behaviours or competition monitoring. Individuals facing the risk of predation and/or competition should adjust the duration of decision making and, as a consequence, their level of choosiness for resources. When exposed to predation, the forager could either maintain its level of choosiness for food items but accept a reduction in the amount of food items consumed or it could reduce its level of choosiness and accept all prey items encountered. Under competition risk, individuals are expected to reduce their level of choosiness as slow decision making exposes individuals to a higher risk of opportunity costs. To test these predictions, the level of choosiness of a seed-eating carabid beetle, Harpalus affinis, was examined under 4 different experimental conditions of risk: i) predation risk; ii) intraspecific competition; iii) interspecific competition; and, iv) control. All the risks were simulated using chemical cues from individual conspecifics or beetles of different species that are predatory or granivorous. Our results show that when foraging under the risk of predation, H. affinis individuals significantly reduce their level of choosiness for seeds. Reductions in level of choosiness for food items might serve as a sensible strategy to reduce both the total duration of a foraging task and the cognitive load of the food quality assessment. No significant differences were observed when individuals were exposed to competition cues. Competition, (i.e opportunity cost) may not be perceived as risk high enough to induce changes in the level of choosiness. Our results suggest that considering the amount of items consumed, alone, would be a misleading metric when assessing individual response to a risk of predation. Foraging studies should therefore also take in account the decision making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Charalabidis & François-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont & Sandrine Petit & David A Bohan, 2017. "Risk of predation makes foragers less choosy about their food," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0187167
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187167
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187167&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0187167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liam R. Dougherty & David M. Shuker, 2015. "The effect of experimental design on the measurement of mate choice: a meta-analysis," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(2), pages 311-319.
    2. Jeremy M. Davis & César R. Nufio & Daniel R. Papaj, 2011. "Resource quality or competition: why increase resource acceptance in the presence of conspecifics?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(4), pages 730-737.
    3. Guy Beauchamp, 2008. "What is the magnitude of the group-size effect on vigilance?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(6), pages 1361-1368.
    4. Martin Tremmel & Caroline Müller, 2013. "Insect personality depends on environmental conditions," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(2), pages 386-392.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    2. John O MartinIII & Nancy Tyler Burley, 2021. "Elucidating mutual mate choice: effects of trial design on preferences of male zebra finches," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1306-1320.
    3. Jessie C Tanner & Leigh W Simmons, 2022. "Spoiled for choice: number of signalers constrains mate choice based on acoustic signals," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(2), pages 364-375.
    4. Kieran M. Samuk & Emily E. LeDue & Leticia Avilés, 2012. "Sister clade comparisons reveal reduced maternal care behavior in social cobweb spiders," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(1), pages 35-43.
    5. Nöldeke, Georg & Peña, Jorge, 2018. "Group size effects in social evolution," IAST Working Papers 18-75, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    6. Dai, Hui & Wang, Xiaoyue & Lu, Yikang & Hou, Yunxiang & Shi, Lei, 2024. "The effect of intraspecific cooperation in a three-species cyclic predator-prey model," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 470(C).
    7. Jennie M. Carr & Steven L. Lima, 2012. "Heat-conserving postures hinder escape: a thermoregulation–predation trade-off in wintering birds," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 434-441.
    8. Dana M. Williams & Diogo S.M. Samia & William E. Cooper & Daniel T. Blumstein, 2014. "The flush early and avoid the rush hypothesis holds after accounting for spontaneous behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(5), pages 1136-1147.
    9. Alessandra F. Lütz & Annette Cazaubiel & Jeferson J. Arenzon, 2017. "Cyclic Competition and Percolation in Grouping Predator-Prey Populations," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, February.
    10. Gloriana Chaverri & Erin H. Gillam & Thomas H. Kunz, 2013. "A call-and-response system facilitates group cohesion among disc-winged bats," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(2), pages 481-487.
    11. Guy Beauchamp & Peter Alexander & Roger Jovani, 2012. "Consistent waves of collective vigilance in groups using public information about predation risk," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 368-374.
    12. Guillaume Rieucau & Pierrick Blanchard & Julien G A Martin & François-René Favreau & Anne W Goldizen & Olivier Pays, 2012. "Investigating Differences in Vigilance Tactic Use within and between the Sexes in Eastern Grey Kangaroos," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0187167. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.