Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Página inicial / in nature what happens to individual predators that are less efficient at foraging than others

in nature what happens to individual predators that are less efficient at foraging than others

Postar um comentário

Searching for wild nutrient resources

For foraging by humans, run into Ethnobotany. For the cloth that is eaten past foraging animals, see Forage.

Foraging is searching for wild food resources. It affects an animal's fitness because information technology plays an of import part in an animal's ability to survive and reproduce.[i] Foraging theory is a branch of behavioral environmental that studies the foraging beliefs of animals in response to the environment where the animal lives.

Behavioral ecologists employ economic models and categories to sympathise foraging; many of these models are a blazon of optimal model. Thus foraging theory is discussed in terms of optimizing a payoff from a foraging conclusion. The payoff for many of these models is the amount of energy an creature receives per unit of measurement time, more specifically, the highest ratio of energetic gain to price while foraging.[2] Foraging theory predicts that the decisions that maximize energy per unit of measurement time and thus deliver the highest payoff will be selected for and persist. Primal words used to describe foraging beliefs include resources, the elements necessary for survival and reproduction which have a limited supply, predator, whatever organism that consumes others, prey, an organism that is eaten in office or whole past another,[1] and patches, concentrations of resources.

Behavioral ecologists first tackled this topic in the 1960s and 1970s. Their goal was to quantify and formalize a set of models to test their null hypothesis that animals fodder randomly. Important contributions to foraging theory have been made by:

  • Eric Charnov, who adult the marginal value theorem to predict the behavior of foragers using patches;
  • Sir John Krebs, with piece of work on the optimal diet model in relation to tits and chickadees;
  • John Goss-Custard, who first tested the optimal diet model against behavior in the field, using redshank, and and then proceeded to an extensive study of foraging in the common pied oystercatcher

Factors influencing foraging beliefs [edit]

Several factors bear upon an animal'south power to forage and acquire profitable resource.

Learning [edit]

Learning is defined every bit an adaptive modify or modification of a behavior based on a previous experience.[iii] Since an animal'south environment is constantly changing, the power to adjust foraging behavior is essential for maximization of fitness. Studies in social insects have shown that there is a meaning correlation between learning and foraging performance.[iii]

In nonhuman primates, immature individuals learn foraging beliefs from their peers and elders by watching other group members forage and by copying their behavior.[4] Observing and learning from other members of the group ensure that the younger members of the group larn what is safe to eat and become skillful foragers.

1 measure of learning is 'foraging innovation'—an animal consuming new food, or using a new foraging technique in response to their dynamic living environment.[five] Foraging innovation is considered learning because it involves behavioral plasticity on the fauna's part. The brute recognizes the demand to come up with a new foraging strategy and introduce something it has never used before to maximize his or her fitness (survival). Forebrain size has been associated with learning beliefs. Animals with larger brain sizes are expected to larn better.[5] A higher ability to introduce has been linked to larger forebrain sizes in North American and British Isle birds co-ordinate to Lefebvre et al. (1997).[six] In this study, bird orders that contained individuals with larger forebrain sizes displayed a higher amount of foraging innovation. Examples of innovations recorded in birds include post-obit tractors and eating frogs or other insects killed by it and using swaying trees to take hold of their prey.[v]

Another measure of learning is spatio-temporal learning (also called fourth dimension-place learning), which refers to an individual's ability to associate the time of an event with the place of that upshot.[seven] This type of learning has been documented in the foraging behaviors of individuals of the stingless bee species Trigona fulviventris. [seven] Studies showed that T. fulviventris individuals learned the locations and times of feeding events, and arrived to those locations up to thirty minutes before the feeding effect in anticipation of the nutrient advantage.[7]

Genetics [edit]

A European honey bee extracts nectar. According to Hunt (2007), ii genes have been associated with the sugar concentration of the nectar dearest bees collect.

Foraging behavior tin can also be influenced by genetics. The genes associated with foraging beliefs take been widely studied in honeybees with reference to the following; onset of foraging behavior, job division betwixt foragers and workers, and bias in foraging for either pollen or nectar.[5] [8] Beloved bee foraging activeness occurs both inside and exterior the hive for either pollen or nectar. Similar behavior is seen in many social wasps, such as the species Apoica flavissima. Studies using quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping have associated the following loci with the matched functions; Pln-1 and Pln-iv with onset of foraging historic period, Pln-1 and two with the size of the pollen loads nerveless by workers, and Pln-2 and pln-iii were shown to influence the carbohydrate concentration of the nectar collected.[8]

Some behaviors are more dominant than others. In a report using fruit wing larvae (Drosophila melanogaster), in that location were ii types of foraging strategies: rovers and sitters.[9] Rovers used the strategy of moving across multiple patches in search for food, while sitters remained in 1 patch with no inclination to get searching. Both of these strategies are polymorphic traits that naturally occur within the larval stages of fruit flies. The cistron responsible for major effects on foraging beliefs in Drosophila melanogaster larvae is the chaser (Csr) gene.[10] During the study, homozygous strains were produced by crossing the rovers with rovers and sitters with sitters.[11] Using the method of hybridization - crossing rovers with sitters - all of the offspring displayed the rover foraging behavior, thus demonstrating that information technology is an allele of complete dominance.

Presence of predators [edit]

The presence of predators while a (prey) animal is foraging affects its behaviour. In general, foragers rest the adventure of predation with their needs, thus diffusive from the foraging behaviour that would be expected in the absence of predators.[12] An instance of this balanced gamble tin be observed in the foraging behavior of A. longimana.[13]

Parasitism [edit]

Parasitism can touch on the fashion in which animals forage. For an organism to counteract the procurement of a parasite, they may display abstention towards certain areas where parasites have previously been discovered.[fourteen] This avoidance behavior is a trade-off mechanism where the loss of fourth dimension and energy in avoiding nutrient patches is traded with the subtract in risk of contracting a parasite.[xv] Adaptations in diet also assistance in the prevention of parasitic infection. By avoiding foods that have loftier potential for parasitic contagion, as well as including nutrient items that contain anti-parasitic properties in the diet. These anti-parasitic backdrop tin exist used in a self-medicating way, either prophylactically or therapeutically.[16]

Types of foraging [edit]

Foraging can exist categorized into two main types. The first is alone foraging, when animals forage by themselves. The second is grouping foraging. Group foraging includes when animals tin be seen foraging together when it is beneficial for them to exercise and so (chosen an aggregation economy) and when it is detrimental for them to do so (chosen a dispersion economic system).

Solitary foraging [edit]

Alone foraging includes the variety of foraging in which animals find, capture and eat their prey alone. Individuals can manually exploit patches or they tin can use tools to exploit their prey. For instance, Bolas spiders attack their casualty by luring them with a odor identical to the female moth'south sexual activity pheromones. [17] Animals may cull to forage on their ain when the resources are arable, which can occur when the habitat is rich or when the number of conspecifics foraging are few. In these cases at that place may be no need for group foraging.[18] In add-on, foraging solitary tin consequence in less interaction with other foragers, which can decrease the amount of competition and dominance interactions an creature deals with. It volition also ensure that a solitary forager is less conspicuous to predators.[19] Solitary foraging strategies characterize many of the phocids (the true seals) such as the elephant and harbor seals. An instance of an exclusive solitary forager is the South American species of the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex vermiculatus.[20]

Search Behavior [edit]

Animals tin can typically be classified into two categories past their pattern of motion exhibited through foraging behaviors. These categories are "cruise" searchers and "deadfall" searchers.[21] Cruise searchers forage by continuously hunting for casualty at the outer borders of the surface area being searched, while ambush searchers forage past sitting and waiting. They remain motionless for long durations equally they wait on the prey to pass past, therefore initiating the ambusher to set on.[22]

Tool apply in solitary foraging [edit]

Some examples of tool use include dolphins using sponges to feed on fish that bury themselves in the sediment,[23] New Caledonian crows that use sticks to get larvae out of trees,[24] and chimpanzees that similarly apply sticks to capture and consume termites.[25]

Solitary foraging and optimal foraging theory [edit]

The theory scientists use to empathise alone foraging is chosen optimal foraging theory. Optimal foraging theory (OFT) was outset proposed in 1966, in ii papers published independently, by Robert MacArthur and Eric Pianka,[26] and past J. Merritt Emlen.[27] This theory argues that because of the key importance of successful foraging to an individual's survival, information technology should be possible to predict foraging behavior by using decision theory to determine the beliefs that an "optimal forager" would exhibit. Such a forager has perfect knowledge of what to do to maximize usable nutrient intake. While the behavior of real animals inevitably departs from that of the optimal forager, optimal foraging theory has proved very useful in developing hypotheses for describing real foraging beliefs. Departures from optimality often assistance to identify constraints either in the brute's behavioral or cognitive repertoire, or in the surround, that had not previously been suspected. With those constraints identified, foraging behavior ofttimes does approach the optimal pattern even if it is non identical to it. In other words, we know from optimal foraging theory that animals are not foraging randomly even if their behavior doesn't perfectly match what is predicted by Frequently.

Versions of Oftentimes [edit]

There are many versions of optimal foraging theory that are relevant to different foraging situations. These models generally possess the following components according to Stephens et al. 2007;

  • Currency: an objective function, what we want to maximize,[28] in this instance energy over fourth dimension as a currency of fettle
  • Determination: ready of choices nether the organism'southward control,[28] or the decisions that the organism exhibits
  • Constraints: "an organism'due south choices are constrained by genetics, physiology neurology, morphology and the laws of chemistry and physics"[28]

Some of these versions include:

The optimal nutrition model, which analyzes the beliefs of a forager that encounters dissimilar types of prey and must choose which to attack. This model is also known as the prey model or the assault model. In this model the predator encounters unlike prey items and decides whether to spend time handling or eating the prey. It predicts that foragers should ignore low profitability casualty items when more profitable items are present and abundant.[28] The objective of this model is to identify the pick that will maximize fitness. How profitable a prey item is depends on ecological variables such as the time required to find, capture, and consume the prey in addition to the energy it provides. It is likely that an individual will settle for a trade off between maximizing the intake rate while eating and minimising the search interval between casualty.[1]

Patch selection theory, which describes the behavior of a forager whose casualty is concentrated in small areas known as patches with a pregnant travel fourth dimension between them. The model seeks to find out how much time an individual will spend on one patch earlier deciding to move to the next patch. To understand whether an fauna should stay at a patch or motion to a new ane, think of a bear in a patch of berry bushes. The longer a conduct stays at the patch of berry bushes the less berries in that location are for that bear to consume. The bear must make up one's mind how long to stay and thus when to exit that patch and move to a new patch. Movement depends on the travel time betwixt patches and the energy gained from ane patch versus another.[28] This is based on the marginal value theorem.

Central place foraging theory is a version of the patch model. This model describes the behavior of a forager that must return to a detail place to consume food, or perhaps to hoard food or feed information technology to a mate or offspring. Chipmunks are a good instance of this model. As travel time betwixt the patch and their hiding identify increased, the chipmunks stayed longer at the patch.

In recent decades, optimal foraging theory has often been practical to the foraging behavior of man hunter-gatherers. Although this is controversial, coming under some of the same kinds of attack as the application of sociobiological theory to human behavior, it does represent a convergence of ideas from man ecology and economic anthropology that has proved fruitful and interesting.

Grouping foraging [edit]

Group foraging is when animals find, capture and consume prey in the presence of other individuals. In other words, it is foraging when success depends non only on your own foraging behaviors but the behaviors of others as well.[28] An important note hither is that group foraging can sally in two types of situations. The outset state of affairs is frequently thought of and occurs when foraging in a group is beneficial and brings greater rewards known as an aggregation economic system.[one] The second state of affairs occurs when a group of animals forage together simply it may not be in an animal's best interest to exercise and then known every bit a dispersion economy. Recollect of a cardinal at a bird feeder for the dispersion economy. We might see a group of birds foraging at that bird feeder merely it is not in the best interest of the fundamental for whatsoever of the other birds to be at that place too. The amount of food the cardinal tin get from that bird feeder depends on how much it can have from the bird feeder but besides depends on how much the other birds take too.

A male northern central at a bird feeder. Birds feeding at a bird feeder is an example of a dispersion economic system. This is when it may non be in an animate being'southward best interest to forage in a group.

In red harvester ants, the foraging process is divided between three dissimilar types of workers: nest patrollers, trail patrollers, and foragers. These workers can utilize many different methods of communicating while foraging in a grouping, such as guiding flights, scent paths, and "jostling runs", as seen in the eusocial bee Melipona scutellaris.[29]

Chimpanzees in the Taï Woods in Côte d'Ivoire also engage in foraging for meats when they can, which is achieved through grouping foraging. Positive correlation has been observed between the success of the hunt and the size of the foraging group. The chimps have also been observed implying rules with their foraging, where there is a do good to becoming involved through allowing successful hunters showtime access to their kills.[30] [31] [32]

Cost and benefits of grouping foraging [edit]

Female lions make foraging decisions and more specifically decisions about hunting group size with protection of their cubs and territory defense in mind.[33]

As already mentioned, group foraging brings both costs and benefits to the members of that group. Some of the benefits of grouping foraging include being able to capture larger prey,[33] being able to create aggregations of prey,[34] being able to capture casualty that are difficult or dangerous and nigh chiefly reduction of predation threat.[28] With regard to costs, still, group foraging results in competition for available resource past other group members. Contest for resources can exist characterized by either scramble contest whereby each individual strives to get a portion of the shared resource, or by interference competition whereby the presence of competitors prevents a forager's accessibility to resource.[ane] Group foraging can thus reduce an fauna's foraging payoff.[28]

Group foraging may be influenced past the size of a grouping. In some species similar lions and wild dogs, foraging success increases with an increase in group size then declines once the optimal size is exceeded. A myriad number of factors affect the group sizes in different species. For example, lionesses (female lions) do not make decisions about foraging in a vacuum. They make decisions that reflect a balance betwixt obtaining nutrient, defending their territory and protecting their young. In fact, we come across that panthera leo foraging behavior does not maximize their energy proceeds. They are not behaving optimally with respect to foraging considering they take to defend their territory and protect young so they hunt in small groups to reduce the risk of being caught alone.[33] Some other factor that may influence group size is the cost of hunting. To empathise the behavior of wild dogs and the average group size we must contain the distance the dogs run.[35]

Theorizing on hominid foraging during the Aurignacian Blades et al (2001) defined the forager performing the activity to the optimal efficiency when the private is having considered the residual of costs for search and pursuit of prey in considerations of prey selection. Also in selecting an area to work inside the individual would have had to decide the right fourth dimension to move to another location corresponding to perception of yield remaining and potential yields of any given area available. [36]

Foraging Arena Theory [edit]

A quantitative model that allows for the evaluation of merchandise-off decisions that occur in aquatic ecosystems.[37] 'Foraging arenas' are the areas in which a juvenile fish can fodder closer to their home while also providing an easier escape from potential predators. This theory predicts that feeding activeness should exist dependent upon the density of juvenile fishes, and the chance of predation inside the area. A remainder between the growth and mortality of these juvenile fishes is reliant consequent to the duration of foraging performed past said juvenile fish.[38] These components vary with regards to the habitat.

Grouping foraging and the ideal free distribution [edit]

The theory scientists employ to understand group foraging is called the Platonic free distribution. This is the nothing model for thinking virtually what would draw animals into groups to forage and how they would deport in the procedure. This model predicts that animals will make an instantaneous decision about where to forage based on the quality (casualty availability) of the patches available at that time and will choose the most profitable patch, the one that maximizes their energy intake. This quality depends on the starting quality of the patch and the number of predators already there consuming the prey.[39]

See also [edit]

  • List of forageable plants (edible by humans)
  • Chesson's alphabetize
  • Fodder
  • Avian foraging
  • Alexis Nikole Nelson, Blackness Forager
  • Provender fish
  • Hunter-gatherer
  • Lévy flight foraging hypothesis
  • Optimal foraging theory
  • Scavenging

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e Danchin, E.; Giraldeau, L. & Cezilly, F. (2008). Behavioural Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-920629-two. [ folio needed ]
  2. ^ Hughes, Roger Northward, ed. (1989), Behavioural Mechanisms of Nutrient Option, London & New York: Springer-Verlag, p. five, ISBN978-0-387-51762-nine
  3. ^ a b Raine, N.E.; Chittka, L. (2008). "The correlation of learning speed and natural foraging success in bumble-bees'". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 275 (1636): 803–08. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1652. PMC2596909. PMID 18198141.
  4. ^ Rapaport, Fifty.Grand.; Brown, Yard.R. (2008). "Social influences on foraging beliefs in young nonhuman primates:learning what, where and how to eat". Evolutionary Anthropology: Problems, News, and Reviews. 17 (4): 189–201. doi:ten.1002/evan.20180. S2CID 86010867.
  5. ^ a b c d Dugatkin, Lee Ann (2004). Principles of Animal Behavior.
  6. ^ Lefebvre, Louis; Patrick Whittle; Evan Lascaris; Adam Finkelstein (1997). "Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds". Animal Behaviour. 53 (iii): 549–60. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0330. S2CID 53146859.
  7. ^ a b c Irish potato, Christina M.; Breed, Michael D. (2008-04-01). "Fourth dimension-Place Learning in a Neotropical Stingless Bee, Trigona fulviventris Guérin (Hymenoptera: Apidae)". Journal of the Kansas Entomological Lodge. 81 (1): 73–76. doi:10.2317/JKES-704.23.1. ISSN 0022-8567. S2CID 86256384.
  8. ^ a b Hunt, G.J.; et al. (2007). "Behavioral genomics of honeybee foraging and nest defense force". Naturwissenschaften. 94 (4): 247–67. doi:ten.1007/s00114-006-0183-1. PMC1829419. PMID 17171388.
  9. ^ de Belle, J.Due south.; Hiliker, A.J.; Sokolowski, M.B. (1 September 1989). "Genetic localization of foraging (for): a major gene for larval behavior in Drosophila melanogaster". Genetics Society of America. 123 (1): 157–163. doi:10.1093/genetics/123.1.157 – via Oxford Academic.
  10. ^ Pereira, H S; MacDonald, D East; Hilliker, A J; Sokolowski, Thousand B (1995-09-01). "Chaser (Csr), a new factor affecting larval foraging behavior in Drosophila melanogaster". Genetics. 141 (1): 263–270. doi:10.1093/genetics/141.one.263. ISSN 1943-2631.
  11. ^ de Belle, J.S.; Hiliker, A.J.; Sokolowski, M.B. (1 September 1989). "Genetic localization of foraging (for): a major gene for larval behavior in Drosophila melanogaster". Genetics Lodge of America. 123 (ane): 157–163. doi:ten.1093/genetics/123.1.157 – via Oxford Bookish.
  12. ^ Roch, South.; von Ammon, L.; Geist, J.; Brinker, A. (2018). "Foraging habits of invasive 3-spined sticklebacks ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ) – impacts on fisheries yield in Upper Lake Constance". Fisheries Inquiry. 204: 172–80. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.02.014.
  13. ^ Cruz-Rivera, Edwin; Hay, Mark E. (2000-01-01). "Tin can quantity supervene upon quality? food choice, compensatory feeding, and fettle of marine mesograzers". Ecology. 81 (1): 201–nineteen. doi:x.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0201:CQRQFC]ii.0.CO;two.
  14. ^ Hutchings, Michael R.; Athanasiadou, Spiridoula; Kyriazakis, Ilias; Gordon, Iain J. (11 August 2008). "Can animals utilise foraging behaviour to combat parasites?". Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 62 (2): 361–370. doi:10.1079/PNS2003243. ISSN 1475-2719.
  15. ^ Hutchings, Michael R.; Judge, Johanna; Gordon, Iain J.; Athanasiadou, Spiridoula; Kyriazakis, Ilias (2006). "Utilise of merchandise-off theory to advance agreement of herbivore–parasite interactions". Mammal Review. 36 (1): 1–xvi. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2006.00080.x. ISSN 1365-2907.
  16. ^ Hutchings, Michael R.; Athanasiadou, Spiridoula; Kyriazakis, Ilias; Gordon, Iain J. (11 August 2008). "Tin animals utilise foraging behaviour to combat parasites?". Proceedings of the Nutrition Guild. 62 (two): 361–370. doi:10.1079/PNS2003243. ISSN 1475-2719.
  17. ^ "Foraging Strategies | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com . Retrieved 2021-09-26 .
  18. ^ Riedman, Marianne (1990). The pinnipeds: seals, sea lions, and walruses . Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN978-0-520-06497-iii. ISBN The pinnipeds: seals, sea lions, and walruses By Marianne Riedman 1990.
  19. ^ le Roux, Aliza; Michael I. Cherry; Lorenz Gygax (5 May 2009). "Vigilance behaviour and fitness consequences: comparing a solitary foraging and an obligate group-foraging mammal". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 63 (8): 1097–1107. doi:x.1007/s00265-009-0762-1. S2CID 21961356.
  20. ^ Torres-Contreras, Hugo; Ruby Olivares-Donoso; Hermann M. Niemeyer (2007). "Solitary Foraging in the Ancestral Southward American Ant, Pogonomyrmex vermiculatus. Is it Due to Constraints in the Production or Perception of Trail Pheromones?". Journal of Chemical Ecology. 33 (ii): 435–twoscore. doi:10.1007/s10886-006-9240-vii. PMID 17187299. S2CID 23930353.
  21. ^ O'Brien, W.J.; Browman, H.I.; Evans, B.I. (1990). "Search Strategies of Foraging Animals" (PDF). American Scientist. 78 (ii): 152–160.
  22. ^ O'Brien, West.J.; Browman, H.I.; Evans, B.I. (1990). "Search Strategies of Foraging Animals" (PDF). American Scientist. 78 (ii): 152–160.
  23. ^ Patterson, Due east.Thousand.; Isle of mann, J. (2011). "The Ecological Weather That Favor Tool Use and Innovation in Wild Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops sp.)". PLOS Ane. 6 (7): e22243. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022243. PMC3140497. PMID 21799801.
  24. ^ Rutz, C.; et al. (2010). "The ecological significance of tool use in New Caledonian Crows". Science. 329 (5998): 1523–26. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.1192053. PMID 20847272. S2CID 8888382.
  25. ^ Goodall, Jane (1964). "Tool-using and aimed throwing in a community of free-living chimpanzees". Nature. 201 (4926): 1264–66. doi:10.1038/2011264a0. PMID 14151401. S2CID 7967438.
  26. ^ MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966), "On the optimal use of a patchy environs.", American Naturalist, 100 (916): 603–09, doi:10.1086/282454, JSTOR 2459298, S2CID 86675558
  27. ^ Emlen, J. G. (1966), "The role of time and energy in food preference", The American Naturalist, 100 (916): 611–17, doi:ten.1086/282455, JSTOR 2459299, S2CID 85723900
  28. ^ a b c d e f m h Stephens, D.Due west.; Brown, J.Due south. & Ydenberg, R.C. (2007). Foraging: Behavior and Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Printing. [ folio needed ] [ ISBN missing ]
  29. ^ Hrncir, Michael; Jarau, Stefan; Zucchi, Ronaldo; Barth, Friedrich G. (2000). "Recruitment behavior in stingless bees, Melipona scutellaris and G. quadrifasciata . Ii. Possible mechanisms of communication" (PDF). Apidologie. 31 (1): 93–113. doi:10.1051/apido:2000109.
  30. ^ Boesch, C (1994). "Cooperative hunting in wild Chimpanzees". Creature Behaviour. 48 (3): 653–67. doi:ten.1006/anbe.1994.1285. S2CID 53177700.
  31. ^ 1. Gomes ii. Boesch, 1. C M two. C (2009). "Wild chimpanzees substitution meat for sexual practice on a long term basis". PLOS ONE. iv (4): e5116. doi:x.1371/journal.pone.0005116. PMC2663035. PMID 19352509.
  32. ^ 1 Gomes ii Boesch, ane CM two C (2011). "Reciprocity and trades in wild due west African chimpanzees". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 65 (11): 2183–96. doi:x.1007/s00265-011-1227-x. S2CID 37432514.
  33. ^ a b c Packer, C.; Scheel, D.; Pusey, A.E. (1990). "Why lions form groups: food is not enough". American Naturalist. 136: 1–xix. doi:x.1086/285079. S2CID 85145653.
  34. ^ Benoit-Bird, Kelly; Whitlow W. Fifty. Au (January 2009). "Cooperative prey herding by the pelagic dolphin, Stenella longirostris" (PDF). The Journal of the Acoustical Guild of America. 125 (i): 125–37. doi:ten.1121/i.2967480. PMID 19173400. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-25. Retrieved 2011-11-29 .
  35. ^ Creel, S; Creel Due north Thou (1995). "Communal hunting and pack size in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus". Animal Behaviour. l (v): 1325–39. doi:ten.1016/0003-3472(95)80048-4. S2CID 53180378.
  36. ^ BS Blades – Aurignacian Lithic Economy: Ecological Perspectives from Southwestern France Springer, 31 January 2001 Retrieved 2012-07-08 ISBN 0306463342
  37. ^ Ahrens, Robert North. M.; Walters, Carl J.; Christensen, Villy (2012). "Foraging arena theory". Fish and Fisheries. thirteen (1): 41–59. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00432.x. ISSN 1467-2979.
  38. ^ Tupper, Mark; Juanes, Francis (2017-02-01). "Testing foraging arena theory: The effects of conspecific density and habitat type on time and energy budgets of juvenile cunner". Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 487: 86–93. doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2016.12.001. ISSN 0022-0981.
  39. ^ Stephens, D.W. (half-dozen August 2008). "Optimal Foraging Theory". Encyclopedia of ecology. Elsevier: 2561–2566 – via ScienceDirect.

External links [edit]

  • The Association of Foragers: An international association for teachers of foraging skills.
  • Forager'south Buddy GPS Foraging
  • S West Outdoor Travelers- Wild Edibles, Medicinals, Foraging, Archaic Skills & More
  • Institute for the Study of Edible Wild Plants and Other Foragables
  • The Big Green Idea Wild Foraging Factsheet Archived 2009-02-25 at the Wayback Machine
  • Caress, Badiday. (2000), The emergence and stability of cooperative angling on Ifaluk Atoll, for Human Behavior and Adaptation: an Anthropological Perspective Archived 2013-05-31 at the Wayback Auto, edited by L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, and B. Iro ns, pp. 437–472.

yoonneven1968.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraging

Postar um comentário for "in nature what happens to individual predators that are less efficient at foraging than others"