Group Foraging by a Kleptoparasitic Fish: A Strong Inference Test of Social Foraging Models
Animals that obtain food by using the investment of other foragers (kleptoparasites) often do so in groups. We tested whether group formation by a kleptoparasitic fish, the western buffalo bream (Kyphosus cornelii), fit the predictions of five social foraging models. Two aggregation economy models a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology (Durham) 2003-12, Vol.84 (12), p.3349-3359 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3359 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 3349 |
container_title | Ecology (Durham) |
container_volume | 84 |
creator | Hamilton, Ian M. Dill, Lawrence M. |
description | Animals that obtain food by using the investment of other foragers (kleptoparasites) often do so in groups. We tested whether group formation by a kleptoparasitic fish, the western buffalo bream (Kyphosus cornelii), fit the predictions of five social foraging models. Two aggregation economy models assumed that there was some benefit to grouping shared by group members, such as reduced predation risk or increased ability to gain access to resources. These models and a third, the dispersion (ideal free) economy model, assumed that kleptoparasites had perfect information regarding the quality of opportunities for kleptoparasitism. The other two models did not make this assumption. These producer-scrounger models assumed that some kleptoparasites (producers) discovered opportunities, while others used producers to reduce the costs of foraging. These last two models differed in whether foragers could estimate the state of current opportunities for kleptoparasitism. We compared typical group size, and the influence of group size on intake rate and the success of kleptoparasitic attempts, with the predictions of these models. We found that typical group size was larger during periods when opportunities for kleptoparasitism were poor than when good and that there was no influence of group size on the likelihood that the group was successful at kleptoparasitizing. Individual intake rate declined with group size for small group sizes, but increased with group size in large groups. However, large groups were rare. For small groups, only a producer-scrounger model allowing foragers to update their information could not be rejected. For large groups, neither that model nor the aggregation economy with foraging benefits model could be rejected. We compare these results with those of other studies of kleptoparasitic groups. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1890/02-0227 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18030634</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3450078</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3450078</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3779-d843a819630de6a7d8b6c6286e5f7967f702b6bd6d84124ab692f067371d9af33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1rGzEQhkVpIG4S8gd6EIU2p01G0lofvQUTO6YJOSQ5hByEViu5MpvVVlpT_O8rY9NAoXOZy_M-zLwInRO4JFLBFdAKKBUf0IQopipFBHxEEwBCK8Wn8hh9ynkNZUgtJ-h1keJmwPOYzCr0K9xsscE_OjeMcTDJ5DAGi-ch__yOr_HjmGJhlr13yfXW4SeXRxw9fow2mO7dch9b1-VTdORNl93ZYZ-g5_nN0-y2untYLGfXd5VlQqiqlTUzkijOoHXciFY23HIquZt6objwAmjDm5YXkNDaNFxRD1wwQVplPGMn6NveO6T4a1NO0m8hW9d1pndxkzWRwICzuoBf_gHXcZP6cpumpTtBAGiBLvaQTTHn5LweUngzaasJ6F3DGqjeNVzIrwedydZ0PpnehvyOT5kSXO6M9Z77HTq3_Z9O38xeKADbPclYrUrs8z62zmNMf2OsngIIyf4A6cOQGw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218971002</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Group Foraging by a Kleptoparasitic Fish: A Strong Inference Test of Social Foraging Models</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Hamilton, Ian M. ; Dill, Lawrence M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Ian M. ; Dill, Lawrence M.</creatorcontrib><description>Animals that obtain food by using the investment of other foragers (kleptoparasites) often do so in groups. We tested whether group formation by a kleptoparasitic fish, the western buffalo bream (Kyphosus cornelii), fit the predictions of five social foraging models. Two aggregation economy models assumed that there was some benefit to grouping shared by group members, such as reduced predation risk or increased ability to gain access to resources. These models and a third, the dispersion (ideal free) economy model, assumed that kleptoparasites had perfect information regarding the quality of opportunities for kleptoparasitism. The other two models did not make this assumption. These producer-scrounger models assumed that some kleptoparasites (producers) discovered opportunities, while others used producers to reduce the costs of foraging. These last two models differed in whether foragers could estimate the state of current opportunities for kleptoparasitism. We compared typical group size, and the influence of group size on intake rate and the success of kleptoparasitic attempts, with the predictions of these models. We found that typical group size was larger during periods when opportunities for kleptoparasitism were poor than when good and that there was no influence of group size on the likelihood that the group was successful at kleptoparasitizing. Individual intake rate declined with group size for small group sizes, but increased with group size in large groups. However, large groups were rare. For small groups, only a producer-scrounger model allowing foragers to update their information could not be rejected. For large groups, neither that model nor the aggregation economy with foraging benefits model could be rejected. We compare these results with those of other studies of kleptoparasitic groups.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/02-0227</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECGYAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Ecology Society of America</publisher><subject>Aggregation ; aggregation economy ; Agnatha and pisces ; Agnatha. Pisces ; Animal and plant ecology ; Animal behavior ; Animal ethology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Autoecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; dispersion economy ; Ecological invasion ; Ecological modeling ; Economic models ; Fish ; Fish feeding ; Foraging ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Group size ; ideal free distribution ; information ; Kleptoparasitism ; Kyphosus cornelii ; Modeling ; producer–scrounger model ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Tests ; Vertebrata</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 2003-12, Vol.84 (12), p.3349-3359</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2003 Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2003 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Ecological Society of America Dec 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3779-d843a819630de6a7d8b6c6286e5f7967f702b6bd6d84124ab692f067371d9af33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3779-d843a819630de6a7d8b6c6286e5f7967f702b6bd6d84124ab692f067371d9af33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3450078$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3450078$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,801,1414,27907,27908,45557,45558,58000,58233</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15397682$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Ian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dill, Lawrence M.</creatorcontrib><title>Group Foraging by a Kleptoparasitic Fish: A Strong Inference Test of Social Foraging Models</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><description>Animals that obtain food by using the investment of other foragers (kleptoparasites) often do so in groups. We tested whether group formation by a kleptoparasitic fish, the western buffalo bream (Kyphosus cornelii), fit the predictions of five social foraging models. Two aggregation economy models assumed that there was some benefit to grouping shared by group members, such as reduced predation risk or increased ability to gain access to resources. These models and a third, the dispersion (ideal free) economy model, assumed that kleptoparasites had perfect information regarding the quality of opportunities for kleptoparasitism. The other two models did not make this assumption. These producer-scrounger models assumed that some kleptoparasites (producers) discovered opportunities, while others used producers to reduce the costs of foraging. These last two models differed in whether foragers could estimate the state of current opportunities for kleptoparasitism. We compared typical group size, and the influence of group size on intake rate and the success of kleptoparasitic attempts, with the predictions of these models. We found that typical group size was larger during periods when opportunities for kleptoparasitism were poor than when good and that there was no influence of group size on the likelihood that the group was successful at kleptoparasitizing. Individual intake rate declined with group size for small group sizes, but increased with group size in large groups. However, large groups were rare. For small groups, only a producer-scrounger model allowing foragers to update their information could not be rejected. For large groups, neither that model nor the aggregation economy with foraging benefits model could be rejected. We compare these results with those of other studies of kleptoparasitic groups.</description><subject>Aggregation</subject><subject>aggregation economy</subject><subject>Agnatha and pisces</subject><subject>Agnatha. Pisces</subject><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal ethology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Autoecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>dispersion economy</subject><subject>Ecological invasion</subject><subject>Ecological modeling</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fish feeding</subject><subject>Foraging</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Group size</subject><subject>ideal free distribution</subject><subject>information</subject><subject>Kleptoparasitism</subject><subject>Kyphosus cornelii</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>producer–scrounger model</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Tests</subject><subject>Vertebrata</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1rGzEQhkVpIG4S8gd6EIU2p01G0lofvQUTO6YJOSQ5hByEViu5MpvVVlpT_O8rY9NAoXOZy_M-zLwInRO4JFLBFdAKKBUf0IQopipFBHxEEwBCK8Wn8hh9ynkNZUgtJ-h1keJmwPOYzCr0K9xsscE_OjeMcTDJ5DAGi-ch__yOr_HjmGJhlr13yfXW4SeXRxw9fow2mO7dch9b1-VTdORNl93ZYZ-g5_nN0-y2untYLGfXd5VlQqiqlTUzkijOoHXciFY23HIquZt6objwAmjDm5YXkNDaNFxRD1wwQVplPGMn6NveO6T4a1NO0m8hW9d1pndxkzWRwICzuoBf_gHXcZP6cpumpTtBAGiBLvaQTTHn5LweUngzaasJ6F3DGqjeNVzIrwedydZ0PpnehvyOT5kSXO6M9Z77HTq3_Z9O38xeKADbPclYrUrs8z62zmNMf2OsngIIyf4A6cOQGw</recordid><startdate>200312</startdate><enddate>200312</enddate><creator>Hamilton, Ian M.</creator><creator>Dill, Lawrence M.</creator><general>Ecology Society of America</general><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200312</creationdate><title>Group Foraging by a Kleptoparasitic Fish: A Strong Inference Test of Social Foraging Models</title><author>Hamilton, Ian M. ; Dill, Lawrence M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3779-d843a819630de6a7d8b6c6286e5f7967f702b6bd6d84124ab692f067371d9af33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Aggregation</topic><topic>aggregation economy</topic><topic>Agnatha and pisces</topic><topic>Agnatha. Pisces</topic><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal ethology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Autoecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>dispersion economy</topic><topic>Ecological invasion</topic><topic>Ecological modeling</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fish feeding</topic><topic>Foraging</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Group size</topic><topic>ideal free distribution</topic><topic>information</topic><topic>Kleptoparasitism</topic><topic>Kyphosus cornelii</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>producer–scrounger model</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Tests</topic><topic>Vertebrata</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Ian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dill, Lawrence M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hamilton, Ian M.</au><au>Dill, Lawrence M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Group Foraging by a Kleptoparasitic Fish: A Strong Inference Test of Social Foraging Models</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><date>2003-12</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3349</spage><epage>3359</epage><pages>3349-3359</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><coden>ECGYAQ</coden><abstract>Animals that obtain food by using the investment of other foragers (kleptoparasites) often do so in groups. We tested whether group formation by a kleptoparasitic fish, the western buffalo bream (Kyphosus cornelii), fit the predictions of five social foraging models. Two aggregation economy models assumed that there was some benefit to grouping shared by group members, such as reduced predation risk or increased ability to gain access to resources. These models and a third, the dispersion (ideal free) economy model, assumed that kleptoparasites had perfect information regarding the quality of opportunities for kleptoparasitism. The other two models did not make this assumption. These producer-scrounger models assumed that some kleptoparasites (producers) discovered opportunities, while others used producers to reduce the costs of foraging. These last two models differed in whether foragers could estimate the state of current opportunities for kleptoparasitism. We compared typical group size, and the influence of group size on intake rate and the success of kleptoparasitic attempts, with the predictions of these models. We found that typical group size was larger during periods when opportunities for kleptoparasitism were poor than when good and that there was no influence of group size on the likelihood that the group was successful at kleptoparasitizing. Individual intake rate declined with group size for small group sizes, but increased with group size in large groups. However, large groups were rare. For small groups, only a producer-scrounger model allowing foragers to update their information could not be rejected. For large groups, neither that model nor the aggregation economy with foraging benefits model could be rejected. We compare these results with those of other studies of kleptoparasitic groups.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Ecology Society of America</pub><doi>10.1890/02-0227</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-9658 |
ispartof | Ecology (Durham), 2003-12, Vol.84 (12), p.3349-3359 |
issn | 0012-9658 1939-9170 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18030634 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy |
subjects | Aggregation aggregation economy Agnatha and pisces Agnatha. Pisces Animal and plant ecology Animal behavior Animal ethology Animal, plant and microbial ecology Animals Autoecology Biological and medical sciences dispersion economy Ecological invasion Ecological modeling Economic models Fish Fish feeding Foraging Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Group size ideal free distribution information Kleptoparasitism Kyphosus cornelii Modeling producer–scrounger model Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Tests Vertebrata |
title | Group Foraging by a Kleptoparasitic Fish: A Strong Inference Test of Social Foraging Models |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T19%3A25%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Group%20Foraging%20by%20a%20Kleptoparasitic%20Fish:%20A%20Strong%20Inference%20Test%20of%20Social%20Foraging%20Models&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Hamilton,%20Ian%20M.&rft.date=2003-12&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3349&rft.epage=3359&rft.pages=3349-3359&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft.coden=ECGYAQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/02-0227&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3450078%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218971002&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3450078&rfr_iscdi=true |