Reversed optimality and predictive ecology: burrowing depth forecasts population change in a bivalve

Optimality reasoning from behavioural ecology can be used as a tool to infer how animals perceive their environment. Using optimality principles in a ‘reversed manner’ may enable ecologists to predict changes in population size before such changes actually happen. Here we show that a behavioural anti-predation trait (burrowing depth) of the marine bivalve Macoma balthica can be used as an indicator of the change in population size over the year to come. The per capita population growth rate between years t and t+1 correlated strongly with the proportion of individuals living in the dangerous top 4 cm layer of the sediment in year t: the more individuals in the top layer, the steeper the population decline. This is consistent with the prediction based on optimal foraging theory that animals with poor prospects should accept greater risks of predation. This study is among the first to document fitness forecasting in animals.

[1]  Theunis Piersma,et al.  Landscape-scale experiment demonstrates that Wadden Sea intertidal flats are used to capacity by molluscivore migrant shorebirds. , 2009, The Journal of animal ecology.

[2]  C. Philippart,et al.  Climate‐related changes in recruitment of the bivalve Macoma balthica , 2003 .

[3]  P. Edelaar.  Phenotypic plasticity of burrowing depth in the bivalve Macoma balthica: experimental evidence and general implications , 2000, Geological Society, London, Special Publications.

[4]  T. Caro,et al.  Behavioral ecology and conservation biology , 1998 .

[5]  Theunis Piersma,et al.  Long‐term indirect effects of mechanical cockle‐dredging on intertidal bivalve stocks in the Wadden Sea , 2001 .

[6]  L. Zwarts,et al.  Feeding radius, burying depth and siphon size of Macoma balthica and Scrobicularia plana , 1994 .

[7]  A. Houston,et al.  Models of adaptive behaviour , 1999 .

[8]  L. Zwarts,et al.  Why knot Calidris canutus take medium-sized Macoma balthica when six prey species are available , 1992 .

[9]  Colin W. Clark,et al.  Antipredator behavior and the asset-protection principle , 1994 .

[10]  G. Cadée,et al.  Phytoplankton in the Marsdiep at the end of the 20th century; 30 years monitoring biomass, primary production, and Phaeocystis blooms , 2002 .

[11]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Behavioral indicators and conservation: Wielding "the Biologist's tricorder" , 2007 .

[12]  D. Wilson.  What is wrong with absolute individual fitness? , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Competition between birds and mammals: A comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils , 2004, Evolutionary Ecology.

[14]  R. Ydenberg,et al.  Death and danger at migratory stopovers: problems with “predation risk” , 2003 .

[15]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation , 2004 .

[16]  L. Zwarts,et al.  How the food supply harvestable by waders in the Wadden Sea depends on the variation in energy density, body weight, biomass, burying depth and behaviour of tidal-flat invertebrates , 1993 .

[17]  P. Luttikhuizen,et al.  Deep-burying reduces growth in intertidal bivalves : field and mesocosm experiments with Macoma balthica , 1998 .

[18]  A. Frid,et al.  State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. , 2007, The Journal of animal ecology.

[19]  C. Richardson,et al.  Chemically induced predator avoidance behaviour in the burrowing bivalve Macoma balthica , 2006 .

[20]  D. Morris,et al.  Can we measure carrying capacity with foraging behavior? , 2007, Ecology.