Literature DB >> 20053649

Moonlight avoidance in gerbils reveals a sophisticated interplay among time allocation, vigilance and state-dependent foraging.

Burt P Kotler1, Joel Brown, Shomen Mukherjee, Oded Berger-Tal, Amos Bouskila.   

Abstract

Foraging animals have several tools for managing the risk of predation, and the foraging games between them and their predators. Among these, time allocation is foremost, followed by vigilance and apprehension. Together, their use influences a forager's time allocation and giving-up density (GUD) in depletable resource patches. We examined Allenby's gerbils (Gerbilus andersoni allenbyi) exploiting seed resource patches in a large vivarium under varying moon phases in the presence of a red fox (Vulpes vulpes). We measured time allocated to foraging patches electronically and GUDs from seeds left behind in resource patches. From these, we estimated handling times, attack rates and quitting harvest rates (QHRs). Gerbils displayed greater vigilance (lower attack rates) at brighter moon phases (full < wane < wax < new). Similarly, they displayed higher GUDs at brighter moon phases (wax > full > new > wane). Finally, gerbils displayed higher QHRs at new and waxing moon phases. Differences across moon phases not only reflect changing time allocation and vigilance, but changes in the state of the foragers and their marginal value of energy. Early in the lunar cycle, gerbils rely on vigilance and sacrifice state to avoid risk; later they defend state at the cost of increased time allocation; finally their state can recover as safe opportunities expand. In the predator-prey foraging game, foxes may contribute to these patterns of behaviours by modulating their own activity in response to the opportunities presented in each moon phase.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20053649      PMCID: PMC2871830          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.2036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  2 in total

1.  Patch use in time and space for a meso-predator in a risky world.

Authors:  Shomen Mukherjee; Michal Zelcer; Burt P Kotler
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Reversed optimality and predictive ecology: burrowing depth forecasts population change in a bivalve.

Authors:  Jan A van Gils; Casper Kraan; Anne Dekinga; Anita Koolhaas; Jan Drent; Petra de Goeij; Theunis Piersma
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 3.703

  2 in total
  31 in total

1.  The Ecology of fear: host foraging behavior varies with the spatio-temporal abundance of a dominant ectoparasite.

Authors:  Alexa Fritzsche; Brian F Allan
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 3.184

2.  Lunar and temperature effects on activity of free-living desert hamsters (Phodopus roborovskii, Satunin 1903).

Authors:  Elke Scheibler; Corinna Roschlau; David Brodbeck
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 3.787

3.  Prey state shapes the effects of temporal variation in predation risk.

Authors:  Catherine M Matassa; Geoffrey C Trussell
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Predation risk influences feeding rates but competition structures space use for a common Pacific parrotfish.

Authors:  Kathryn Davis; P M Carlson; D Bradley; R R Warner; J E Caselle
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  How does the presence of a conspecific individual change the behavioral game that a predator plays with its prey?

Authors:  Reut Vardi; Zvika Abramsky; Burt P Kotler; Ofir Altstein; Michael L Rosenzweig
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  To dare or not to dare? Risk management by owls in a predator-prey foraging game.

Authors:  Keren Embar; Ashael Raveh; Darren Burns; Burt P Kotler
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  The dilemma of foraging herbivores: dealing with food and fear.

Authors:  Clare McArthur; Peter B Banks; Rudy Boonstra; Jennifer Sorensen Forbey
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Differential fitness in field and forest explains density-independent habitat selection by gartersnakes.

Authors:  William D Halliday; Gabriel Blouin-Demers
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Detecting predators and locating competitors while foraging: an experimental study of a medium-sized herbivore in an African savanna.

Authors:  Olivier Pays; Pierrick Blanchard; Marion Valeix; Simon Chamaillé-Jammes; Patrick Duncan; Stéphanie Périquet; Marion Lombard; Gugulethu Ncube; Tawanda Tarakini; Edwin Makuwe; Hervé Fritz
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Predator facilitation or interference: a game of vipers and owls.

Authors:  Keren Embar; Ashael Raveh; Ishai Hoffmann; Burt P Kotler
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.