Book•
The Ethology of Predation
21 Sep 1976-
TL;DR: This chapter discusses hunting for Prey, the Diversity of Hunting Methods, and the Motivation Underlying Feeding Responses of Predator-Prey Interactions.
Abstract: 1 Internal Factors.- A. Hunger: Expression through Overt behavior.- I. Predatory Schedules.- 1. Patterns of Satiation.- 2. Feast and Famine.- II. Hunger and Diel Rhythms.- III. The Ramification of Hunger Effects.- 1. Capture-eliciting Prey Stimuli.- 2. Search behavior.- IV. The Motivation Underlying Feeding Responses.- 1. Hunger Thresholds of Feeding Response Components.- 2. The Complexity of Predatory Motivation.- V. The Diversity of Foraging Tactics.- VI. Feeding Components Affected and not Affected by Hunger.- B. The Control of Feeding Responses by Factors Other than Hunger.- I. The Readiness to Hunt.- II. Prey Storing.- III. Providing Food for Dependent Family Members.- C. The Problem of Specific Hungers.- I. Switching of Prey.- II. The Prey-density Predation Curve.- III. Swamping the Appetite of Predators.- D. Daily and Annual Rhythms in Predator-Prey Interactions.- I. Daily Rhythm of Predation.- II. Daily Activity Patterns of the Prey.- III. Annual Rhythm of Predation.- 2 Searching for Prey.- A. Path of Searching and Scanning Movements.- B. Area-concentrated Search.- I. Short-term Area Concentration.- 1. Living Scattered and Area-concentrated Search.- 2. The Nature of the Path Changes.- 3. Search Behavior after the Disappearance of Prey.- II. Long-term Area Concentration.- III. One-prey : One-place Association.- C. Object-concentrated Search.- I. Existence and Properties of "Searching Image".- 1. Ecological Evidence.- 2. Experimental Evidence.- II. Social Facilitation of Searching Image Formation.- III. Searching Image and "Training Bias".- IV. Searching Image and Profitability of Hunting.- 1. Ecological Evidence for Profitability of Hunting.- 2. Experimental Evidence for Profitability of Hunting.- V. Prey-specific Expectation.- VI. Ecological Implications of Searching Image.- 3 Prey Recognition.- A. The Stimulus-specificity of Prey Capture.- I. Capture-eliciting Prey Stimuli.- II. Capture-inhibiting Prey Stimuli.- B. One-prey : One-response Relationships.- C. The Assessment of the Circumstances of a Hunt.- D. Prey Recognition by Prey-related Signals.- E. Prey Stimulus Summation.- F. Novelty Versus Familiarity.- I. The Rejection of Novel Prey.- II. Familiarization with Prey and Its Consequences.- G. The Multi-channel Hypothesis of Prey Recognition.- 4 Prey Selection.- A. Preying upon the Weak and the Sick.- B. Preying upon the Odd and the Conspicuous.- C. The Mechanics of Prey Selection.- D. Evolutionary Implications.- 5 Hunting for Prey.- A. Modes of Hunting.- I. Hunting by Speculation.- II. Stalking and Ambushing.- 1. Stalking.- 2. Ambushing.- III. Prey Attack under Disguise.- IV. Pursuit of the Prey.- 1. Changes of Velocity of Attack (Pursuit).- 2. Interception of the Flight Path.- 3. Counteradaptations of the Prey.- V. Exhausting Dangerous Prey.- VI. Insinuation.- VII. Scavenging and Cleptoparasitism.- 1. Modes and Extent.- 2. Cleptoparasitism and Competition.- 3. Counter-measures of the Robbed.- VIII. Tool-use.- IX. Mutilation.- B. The Diversity of Hunting Methods.- I. Prey-specific Methods.- II. Situation-specific Methods.- III. Mechanisms and Causes of Predatory Versatility.- 1. General.- 2. Individual Predatory Repertories.- 3. The Persistence of Individual Traits.- 4. Predatory Specialization and Structural Modification.- 5. Predatory Versatility in Relation to Prey Availability.- C. Behavioral Aspects of Hunting Success.- I. A Comparison of Hunting Success across Predator Species.- II. Variables Influencing Hunting Success within Predator Species.- III. Aspects of Communal Hunting.- 1. Modes and Properties of Communal Hunting.- 2. Factors Conducive to Communal Hunting.- 3. Benefits of Communal Hunting.- References.- Scientific Names of Animals and Plants.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Much recent progress has been made toward integrating developmental and evolutionary biology, especially in vertebrate morphology, developmental genetics, and molecular biology, though an unfortunate one because it seems to imply that the main effect of developmental constraints is that of "Developmental constraints".
Abstract: Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of a single genotype to produce more than one alternative form of morphology, physiological state, and/or behavior in response to environmental conditions. "Plasticity" and "development" are related terms that are becoming increasingly common in evolutionary biology and ecology. Both phenomena have passed through a period of neglect. In the 1960s Wigglesworth (228, p. 107) described some geneticists as being "apologetic" about environmentally cued polymorphisms, which they considered examples of unfortunate defects in the delicate genetic apparatus: "As R. A. Fisher once said to me, it is not surprising that such elaborate machinery should sometimes go wrong." And Bradshaw (19, p. 148) noted that botanists were carefully avoiding any mention of plasticity; environmental effects in experiments were considered "only an embarrassment." Until recently, genetic considerations have predominated in discussions of evolution and selection. Compared to the enormous progress made in genetics, there has been relatively little systematic effort to analyze environmental effects on the phenotype, and their evolutionary consequences. The plastic phenotype, stigmatized by poorly understood environmental influences and the ghost of Lamarck, has sometimes been lost from view as the focus of selection (e.g. 46; but see 48, 49). Much recent progress has been made toward integrating developmental and evolutionary biology, especially in vertebrate morphology (2, 12, 16, 216), developmental genetics (16, 163, 164), and molecular biology (103; also see 10, 111). "Developmental constraints" is a term symptomatic of this progress, though an unfortunate one because it seems to imply that the main effect of
1,966 citations
TL;DR: It is argued that standard natural selection theory in the context of precise models of population structure represents a simpler and superior approach, allows the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses, and provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations.
Abstract: Eusociality, in which some individuals reduce their own lifetime reproductive potential to raise the offspring of others, underlies the most advanced forms of social organization and the ecologically dominant role of social insects and humans. For the past four decades kin selection theory, based on the concept of inclusive fitness, has been the major theoretical attempt to explain the evolution of eusociality. Here we show the limitations of this approach. We argue that standard natural selection theory in the context of precise models of population structure represents a simpler and superior approach, allows the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses, and provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations.
1,207 citations
01 Jan 1978
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the factors that determine color patterns under various specific conditions and show that the actual pattern evolved in a particular place represents a compromise between factors which favor crypsis and those which favor conspicuous color patterns.
Abstract: It has long been known that the general colors and tones of animals tend to match their backgrounds (E. Darwin, 1794; Poulton, 1890). The adaptive significance of this has been borne out in numerous experimental studies (DiCesnola, 1904; Sumner, 1934, 1935; Isley, 1938; Popham, 1942; Dice, 1947; Turner, 1961; Kettlewell, 1956, 1973; Kaufman, 1974; Wiklund, 1975; Curio, 1976). There is also a good understanding of warning coloration (Cott, 1940; Wickler, 1968; Edmunds, 1974; Rothschild, 1975). However, the determinants of color pattern are poorly known, although it is known in a general way that the patterns and forms of animals are similar to their backgrounds (Poulton, 1890; Thayer, 1909; Cott, 1940; Wickler, 1968; Robinson, 1969; Edmunds, 1974; Fogden and Fogden, 1974). It is the purpose of this paper to explore the factors that determine color patterns under various specific conditions. The basic assumption is that a color pattern must resemble a random sample of the background seen by predators in order to be cryptic, and must deviate from the background in one or more ways in order to be conspicuous. As a result, the actual pattern evolved in a particular place represents a compromise between factors which favor crypsis and those which favor conspicuous color patterns.
1,096 citations
TL;DR: Reduced predation success by largemouth bass in habitats of increased complexity apparently is related to increases in visual barriers provided by plant stems as well as to adaptive changes in bluegill behavior.
Abstract: Data from the literature suggest that predatory success declines as habitat complexity increases. To explain this phenomenon, we studied the predator-prey interaction between largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides and bluegills Lepomis macrochirus in four laboratory pools (2.4–3.0 m diameter, 0.7 m deep), each with a different density (0, 50, 250, 1,000 stems/m2) of artificial plant stems. Behavior was quantified for both predator and prey during largemouth bass feeding bouts lasting 60 minutes. Predation success (number of captures) by largemouth bass was similar at 0 and 50 stems/m2, then declined to near zero at 250 and 1,000 stems/m2. As stem density increased, predator activity declined due to a decrease in behaviors associated with visual contact with prey. Reduced predation success by largemouth bass in habitats of increased complexity apparently is related to increases in visual barriers provided by plant stems as well as to adaptive changes in bluegill behavior.
823 citations
TL;DR: It is shown how short-term observations of individual predators can lead to a complete macroscopic description of predator-prey interactions in a spatially distributed environment and how this model might be used to evaluate the effectiveness of different predators as biological control agents.
Abstract: We show that if individual predators restrict the area of their search following an encounter with prey, then this behavior translates into populations of predators flowing toward regions of high prey density. This result requires only that predators move at a constant speed but change their direction of movement more often when their stomachs are full and that increases in prey density increase the feeding rate and stomach fullness of predators. The partial differential equation that is derived by assuming such behavior includes terms representing both random motion and taxis on the part of the predator. The form and magnitude of these terms can be estimated by quantifying how prey density influences the frequency of directional changes in a foraging predator and by obtaining functional-response curves for predators that have been starved for different lengths of time. In general, the strength of a predator's taxis or aggregation response depends on its average velocity of search and on the sensitivity o...
805 citations
Cites background from "The Ethology of Predation"
...This uneven searching effort, often a response to spatial variation in prey density (Curio 1976), may lead to predation rates that are greater in regions where prey are more abundant (i.e., density-dependent predation)....
[...]
...area restriction is typically achieved as a consequence of the predator's increasing frequency of directional changes immediately after finding and eating a victim (Curio 1976; Hassell 1978); reductions in the velocity of movement are also common (Hassell 1978)....
[...]
...This is exactly the behavior that is often observed (Curio 1976)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: Throughout, emphasis will be placed on strategic aspects of feeding rather than on what Holling (75) has called "tactics," and possible answers to the first problem may be given to the second problem.
Abstract: Natural history is replete with observations on feeding, yet only recently have investigators begun to treat feeding as a device whose performance as measured in net energy yield/feeding time or some other units assumed commensurate with fitness-may be maximized by natural selection (44, 1 13, 135, 156, 181) . The primary task of a theory of feeding strategies is to specify for a given animal that complex of behavior and morphology best suited to gather food energy in a particular environment. The task is one, therefore, of optimization, and like all optimization problems, it may be tri sected: 1. Choosing a currency: What is to be maximized or minimized? 2. Choosing the appropriate cost-benefit functions: What is the mathematical form of the set of expressions with the currency as the dependent variable? 3. Solving for the optimum: What computational technique best finds ex trema of the cost-benefit function? In this review, most of the following section is devoted to possible answers to the first problem. Then four key aspects of feeding strategies will be considered: (a) the optimal diet, (b) the optimal foraging space, (c) the optimal foraging period, and (d) the optimal foraging-group size. For each, possible cost-benefit formulations will be discussed and compared, and predictions derived from these will be matched with data from the literature on feeding. Because the third problem is an aspect of applied mathematics, it will be mostly ignored. Throughout, emphasis will be placed on strategic aspects of feeding rather than on what Holling (75) has called "tactics."
3,356 citations
TL;DR: Predation, one such process that affects numbers, forms the subject of the present paper and is based on the density-dependence concept of Smith ( 1955) and the competition theory of Nicholson (1933).
Abstract: The fluctuation of an animal's numbers between restricted limits is determined by a balance between that animal's capacity to increase and the environmenta1 cheks to this increase. Many authors have indulged in the calculating the propressive increase of a population when no checks nrerc operating. Thus Huxley calculated that the progeny of a single Aphis in the course of 10 generations, supposing all survived,would “contain more ponderable substance than five hundred millions of stout men; that is, more than the whole population of China”, (in Thompson, 1929). Checks, however, do occur and it has been the subject of much controversy to determine how these checks operate. Certain general principles—the density-dependence concept of Smith ( 1955) , the competition theory of Nicholson (1933)—have been proposed both verbally and mathematically, but because they have been based in part upon untested and restrictive assumptions they have been severelv criticized (e.g. Andrewartha and Birch 1954). These problems could be considerably clarified if we knew the mode of operation of each process that affects numbers, if we knew its basic and subsidiary components. predation, one such process, forms the subject of the present paper.
3,087 citations
TL;DR: These are my lecture notes from CS681: Design and Analysis of Algo rithms, a one-semester graduate course I taught at Cornell for three consec utive fall semesters from '88 to.
Abstract: These are my lecture notes from CS681: Design and Analysis of Algo rithms, a one-semester graduate course I taught at Cornell for three consec utive fall semesters from '88 to.
2,274 citations
"The Ethology of Predation" refers background in this paper
...Prey density had been kept constant during each 8-h cycle of observation (Holling, 1965)....
[...]
2,110 citations