Titrating Food and Safety in a Heterogeneous Environment: When Are the Risky and Safe Patches of Equal Value?

A forager should exploit a depletable resource patch until the marginal benefits of patch exploitation fall to equal the marginal costs, and it should allocate effort to different patches in order to equalize marginal value across patches. Foraging decisions are therefore titrations of marginal cost...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Oikos 1995-11, Vol.74 (2), p.251-258
Hauptverfasser: Kotler, B. P., Blaustein, L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 258
container_issue 2
container_start_page 251
container_title Oikos
container_volume 74
creator Kotler, B. P.
Blaustein, L.
description A forager should exploit a depletable resource patch until the marginal benefits of patch exploitation fall to equal the marginal costs, and it should allocate effort to different patches in order to equalize marginal value across patches. Foraging decisions are therefore titrations of marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and of marginal value across patches. Often, a forager must balance conflicting demands for food acquisition and safety. Thus, insights into foraging can be gained through titration experiments involving food and safety. Two types of behavioral titrations are possible: (1) equalizing marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and marginal value across patches and (2) equalizing time, energy harvested, or some other quantity across patches and habitats. The first type of titration is performed by the animal, and the second type can be performed by the experimenter; the first type of titration makes the second possible. We conducted titration experiments involving food and safety with gerbils subjected to predation by owls in a large aviary. We examined patch use by gerbils in manipulated resource patches (seed trays) placed in both the bush and the open microhabitats. Rodents took both food and safety into consideration when deciding how long to stay in a patch: giving-up densities of resources in seed trays (GUDs) were higher in the open than in the bush microhabitat. Also, enrichment of resource patches in the open microhabitat revealed that resource patches in the open needed to be 4 to 8 times richer than patches in the bush microhabitat in order to be equally valuable. These results are consistent with field data collected elsewhere indicating that foraging costs are comprised mostly of costs arising from the risk of predation.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/3545654
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_2307_3545654</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3545654</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3545654</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c213t-32a3d967992667aefc9941acec6b5ebf2f3dcd0a0f86a8c36a72b70f231654043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEFLAzEUhIMoWKv4F3IQPK2-TXaTxosUaa1QULTqcXnNJu3WbVKTVOi_t9LSm4dhLt8MzBBymcMN4yBveVmUoiyOSCcXABlIEMekA8Ahy5lSp-QsxgUASCmLDllOmhQwNW5Gh97XFF1N39CatKGNo0hHJpngZ8YZv4504H6a4N3SuHRHP-fG0X4wNM0NfW3i1-aQpi-Y9NxE6i0dfK-xpR_Yrs39OTmx2EZzsfcueR8OJg-jbPz8-PTQH2ea5TxlnCGvlZBKMSEkGquVKnLURotpaaaWWV7rGhBsT2BPc4GSTSVYxvPtcih4l1zvenXwMQZjq1Volhg2VQ7V30vV_qUtebUjVxg1tjag00084EwJ3tvqgC1i8uHftl_Mc3D_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Titrating Food and Safety in a Heterogeneous Environment: When Are the Risky and Safe Patches of Equal Value?</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Kotler, B. P. ; Blaustein, L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kotler, B. P. ; Blaustein, L.</creatorcontrib><description>A forager should exploit a depletable resource patch until the marginal benefits of patch exploitation fall to equal the marginal costs, and it should allocate effort to different patches in order to equalize marginal value across patches. Foraging decisions are therefore titrations of marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and of marginal value across patches. Often, a forager must balance conflicting demands for food acquisition and safety. Thus, insights into foraging can be gained through titration experiments involving food and safety. Two types of behavioral titrations are possible: (1) equalizing marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and marginal value across patches and (2) equalizing time, energy harvested, or some other quantity across patches and habitats. The first type of titration is performed by the animal, and the second type can be performed by the experimenter; the first type of titration makes the second possible. We conducted titration experiments involving food and safety with gerbils subjected to predation by owls in a large aviary. We examined patch use by gerbils in manipulated resource patches (seed trays) placed in both the bush and the open microhabitats. Rodents took both food and safety into consideration when deciding how long to stay in a patch: giving-up densities of resources in seed trays (GUDs) were higher in the open than in the bush microhabitat. Also, enrichment of resource patches in the open microhabitat revealed that resource patches in the open needed to be 4 to 8 times richer than patches in the bush microhabitat in order to be equally valuable. These results are consistent with field data collected elsewhere indicating that foraging costs are comprised mostly of costs arising from the risk of predation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0030-1299</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0706</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3545654</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OIKSAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Munksgaard International Publishers, Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal feeding behavior ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Autoecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Food safety ; Foraging ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Gerbils ; Mammalia ; Marginal benefits ; Marginal costs ; Marginal value ; Microhabitats ; Predation ; Titration ; Vertebrata</subject><ispartof>Oikos, 1995-11, Vol.74 (2), p.251-258</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1995 Munksgaard International Publishers Ltd.</rights><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c213t-32a3d967992667aefc9941acec6b5ebf2f3dcd0a0f86a8c36a72b70f231654043</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3545654$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3545654$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2963896$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kotler, B. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaustein, L.</creatorcontrib><title>Titrating Food and Safety in a Heterogeneous Environment: When Are the Risky and Safe Patches of Equal Value?</title><title>Oikos</title><description>A forager should exploit a depletable resource patch until the marginal benefits of patch exploitation fall to equal the marginal costs, and it should allocate effort to different patches in order to equalize marginal value across patches. Foraging decisions are therefore titrations of marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and of marginal value across patches. Often, a forager must balance conflicting demands for food acquisition and safety. Thus, insights into foraging can be gained through titration experiments involving food and safety. Two types of behavioral titrations are possible: (1) equalizing marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and marginal value across patches and (2) equalizing time, energy harvested, or some other quantity across patches and habitats. The first type of titration is performed by the animal, and the second type can be performed by the experimenter; the first type of titration makes the second possible. We conducted titration experiments involving food and safety with gerbils subjected to predation by owls in a large aviary. We examined patch use by gerbils in manipulated resource patches (seed trays) placed in both the bush and the open microhabitats. Rodents took both food and safety into consideration when deciding how long to stay in a patch: giving-up densities of resources in seed trays (GUDs) were higher in the open than in the bush microhabitat. Also, enrichment of resource patches in the open microhabitat revealed that resource patches in the open needed to be 4 to 8 times richer than patches in the bush microhabitat in order to be equally valuable. These results are consistent with field data collected elsewhere indicating that foraging costs are comprised mostly of costs arising from the risk of predation.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal feeding behavior</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Autoecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Foraging</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Gerbils</subject><subject>Mammalia</subject><subject>Marginal benefits</subject><subject>Marginal costs</subject><subject>Marginal value</subject><subject>Microhabitats</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Titration</subject><subject>Vertebrata</subject><issn>0030-1299</issn><issn>1600-0706</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEFLAzEUhIMoWKv4F3IQPK2-TXaTxosUaa1QULTqcXnNJu3WbVKTVOi_t9LSm4dhLt8MzBBymcMN4yBveVmUoiyOSCcXABlIEMekA8Ahy5lSp-QsxgUASCmLDllOmhQwNW5Gh97XFF1N39CatKGNo0hHJpngZ8YZv4504H6a4N3SuHRHP-fG0X4wNM0NfW3i1-aQpi-Y9NxE6i0dfK-xpR_Yrs39OTmx2EZzsfcueR8OJg-jbPz8-PTQH2ea5TxlnCGvlZBKMSEkGquVKnLURotpaaaWWV7rGhBsT2BPc4GSTSVYxvPtcih4l1zvenXwMQZjq1Volhg2VQ7V30vV_qUtebUjVxg1tjag00084EwJ3tvqgC1i8uHftl_Mc3D_</recordid><startdate>19951101</startdate><enddate>19951101</enddate><creator>Kotler, B. P.</creator><creator>Blaustein, L.</creator><general>Munksgaard International Publishers, Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19951101</creationdate><title>Titrating Food and Safety in a Heterogeneous Environment: When Are the Risky and Safe Patches of Equal Value?</title><author>Kotler, B. P. ; Blaustein, L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c213t-32a3d967992667aefc9941acec6b5ebf2f3dcd0a0f86a8c36a72b70f231654043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal feeding behavior</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Autoecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Foraging</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Gerbils</topic><topic>Mammalia</topic><topic>Marginal benefits</topic><topic>Marginal costs</topic><topic>Marginal value</topic><topic>Microhabitats</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Titration</topic><topic>Vertebrata</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kotler, B. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaustein, L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Oikos</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kotler, B. P.</au><au>Blaustein, L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Titrating Food and Safety in a Heterogeneous Environment: When Are the Risky and Safe Patches of Equal Value?</atitle><jtitle>Oikos</jtitle><date>1995-11-01</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>251</spage><epage>258</epage><pages>251-258</pages><issn>0030-1299</issn><eissn>1600-0706</eissn><coden>OIKSAA</coden><abstract>A forager should exploit a depletable resource patch until the marginal benefits of patch exploitation fall to equal the marginal costs, and it should allocate effort to different patches in order to equalize marginal value across patches. Foraging decisions are therefore titrations of marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and of marginal value across patches. Often, a forager must balance conflicting demands for food acquisition and safety. Thus, insights into foraging can be gained through titration experiments involving food and safety. Two types of behavioral titrations are possible: (1) equalizing marginal costs and marginal benefits within patches and marginal value across patches and (2) equalizing time, energy harvested, or some other quantity across patches and habitats. The first type of titration is performed by the animal, and the second type can be performed by the experimenter; the first type of titration makes the second possible. We conducted titration experiments involving food and safety with gerbils subjected to predation by owls in a large aviary. We examined patch use by gerbils in manipulated resource patches (seed trays) placed in both the bush and the open microhabitats. Rodents took both food and safety into consideration when deciding how long to stay in a patch: giving-up densities of resources in seed trays (GUDs) were higher in the open than in the bush microhabitat. Also, enrichment of resource patches in the open microhabitat revealed that resource patches in the open needed to be 4 to 8 times richer than patches in the bush microhabitat in order to be equally valuable. These results are consistent with field data collected elsewhere indicating that foraging costs are comprised mostly of costs arising from the risk of predation.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Munksgaard International Publishers, Ltd</pub><doi>10.2307/3545654</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0030-1299
ispartof Oikos, 1995-11, Vol.74 (2), p.251-258
issn 0030-1299
1600-0706
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_2307_3545654
source Jstor Complete Legacy
subjects Animal and plant ecology
Animal feeding behavior
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Animals
Autoecology
Biological and medical sciences
Food safety
Foraging
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Gerbils
Mammalia
Marginal benefits
Marginal costs
Marginal value
Microhabitats
Predation
Titration
Vertebrata
title Titrating Food and Safety in a Heterogeneous Environment: When Are the Risky and Safe Patches of Equal Value?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T03%3A32%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Titrating%20Food%20and%20Safety%20in%20a%20Heterogeneous%20Environment:%20When%20Are%20the%20Risky%20and%20Safe%20Patches%20of%20Equal%20Value?&rft.jtitle=Oikos&rft.au=Kotler,%20B.%20P.&rft.date=1995-11-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=251&rft.epage=258&rft.pages=251-258&rft.issn=0030-1299&rft.eissn=1600-0706&rft.coden=OIKSAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3545654&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E3545654%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3545654&rfr_iscdi=true