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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecology (Durham) 2003-12, Vol.84 (12), p.3349-3359
Hauptverfasser: Hamilton, Ian M., Dill, Lawrence M.
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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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