Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk

Foraging is risky and involves balancing the benefits of resource acquisition with costs of predation. Optimal foraging theory predicts where, when and how long to forage in a given spatiotemporal distribution of risks and resources. However, significant variation in foraging behaviour and resource...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Oecologia
Main Authors: Eccard, Jana A., Liesenjohann, Thilo, Dammhahn, Melanie
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7683444/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33141325
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y
id ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:7683444
record_format openpolar
spelling ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:7683444 2023-05-15T17:12:38+02:00 Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk Eccard, Jana A. Liesenjohann, Thilo Dammhahn, Melanie 2020-11-03 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7683444/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33141325 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y en eng Springer Berlin Heidelberg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7683444/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33141325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. CC-BY Oecologia Behavioral Ecology–Original Research Text 2020 ftpubmed https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y 2020-12-06T01:39:00Z Foraging is risky and involves balancing the benefits of resource acquisition with costs of predation. Optimal foraging theory predicts where, when and how long to forage in a given spatiotemporal distribution of risks and resources. However, significant variation in foraging behaviour and resource exploitation remain unexplained. Using single foragers in artificial landscapes of perceived risks and resources with diminishing returns, we aimed to test whether foraging behaviour and resource exploitation are adjusted to risk level, vary with risk during different components of foraging, and (co)vary among individuals. We quantified foraging behaviour and resource exploitation for 21 common voles (Microtus arvalis). By manipulating ground cover, we created simple landscapes of two food patches varying in perceived risk during feeding in a patch and/or while travelling between patches. Foraging of individuals was variable and adjusted to risk level and type. High risk during feeding reduced feeding duration and food consumption more strongly than risk while travelling. Risk during travelling modified the risk effects of feeding for changes between patches and resulting evenness of resource exploitation. Across risk conditions individuals differed consistently in when and how long they exploited resources and exposed themselves to risk. These among-individual differences in foraging behaviour were associated with consistent patterns of resource exploitation. Thus, different strategies in foraging-under-risk ultimately lead to unequal payoffs and might affect lower trophic levels in food webs. Inter-individual differences in foraging behaviour, i.e. foraging personalities, are an integral part of foraging behaviour and need to be fully integrated into optimal foraging theory. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Text Microtus arvalis PubMed Central (PMC) Oecologia 194 4 621 634
institution Open Polar
collection PubMed Central (PMC)
op_collection_id ftpubmed
language English
topic Behavioral Ecology–Original Research
spellingShingle Behavioral Ecology–Original Research
Eccard, Jana A.
Liesenjohann, Thilo
Dammhahn, Melanie
Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk
topic_facet Behavioral Ecology–Original Research
description Foraging is risky and involves balancing the benefits of resource acquisition with costs of predation. Optimal foraging theory predicts where, when and how long to forage in a given spatiotemporal distribution of risks and resources. However, significant variation in foraging behaviour and resource exploitation remain unexplained. Using single foragers in artificial landscapes of perceived risks and resources with diminishing returns, we aimed to test whether foraging behaviour and resource exploitation are adjusted to risk level, vary with risk during different components of foraging, and (co)vary among individuals. We quantified foraging behaviour and resource exploitation for 21 common voles (Microtus arvalis). By manipulating ground cover, we created simple landscapes of two food patches varying in perceived risk during feeding in a patch and/or while travelling between patches. Foraging of individuals was variable and adjusted to risk level and type. High risk during feeding reduced feeding duration and food consumption more strongly than risk while travelling. Risk during travelling modified the risk effects of feeding for changes between patches and resulting evenness of resource exploitation. Across risk conditions individuals differed consistently in when and how long they exploited resources and exposed themselves to risk. These among-individual differences in foraging behaviour were associated with consistent patterns of resource exploitation. Thus, different strategies in foraging-under-risk ultimately lead to unequal payoffs and might affect lower trophic levels in food webs. Inter-individual differences in foraging behaviour, i.e. foraging personalities, are an integral part of foraging behaviour and need to be fully integrated into optimal foraging theory. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Text
author Eccard, Jana A.
Liesenjohann, Thilo
Dammhahn, Melanie
author_facet Eccard, Jana A.
Liesenjohann, Thilo
Dammhahn, Melanie
author_sort Eccard, Jana A.
title Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk
title_short Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk
title_full Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk
title_fullStr Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk
title_full_unstemmed Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk
title_sort among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
publishDate 2020
url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7683444/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33141325
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y
genre Microtus arvalis
genre_facet Microtus arvalis
op_source Oecologia
op_relation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7683444/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33141325
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y
op_rights © The Author(s) 2020
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
op_rightsnorm CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04773-y
container_title Oecologia
container_volume 194
container_issue 4
container_start_page 621
op_container_end_page 634
_version_ 1766069421658341376