Optimal movement strategies for social foragers in unpredictable environments.

Spatial movement models often base movement decision rules on traditional optimal foraging theories, including ideal free distribution (IFD) theory, more recently generalized as density-dependent habitat selection (DDHS) theory, and the marginal value theorem (MVT). Thus optimal patch departure times are predicted on the basis of the density-dependent resource level in the patch. Recently, alternatives to density as a habitat selection criterion, such as individual knowledge of the resource distribution, conspecific attraction, and site fidelity, have been recognized as important influences on movement behavior in environments with an uncertain resource distribution. For foraging processes incorporating these influences, it is not clear whether simple optimal foraging theories provide a reasonable approximation to animal behavior or whether they may be misleading. This study compares patch departure strategies predicted by DDHS theory and the MVT with evolutionarily optimal patch departure strategies for a wide range of foraging scenarios. The level of accuracy with which individuals can navigate toward local food sources is varied, and individual tendency for conspecific attraction or repulsion is optimized over a continuous spectrum. We find that DDHS theory and the MVT accurately predict the evolutionarily optimal patch departure strategy for foragers with high navigational accuracy for a wide range of resource distributions. As navigational accuracy is reduced, the patch departure strategy cannot be accurately predicted by these theories for environments with a heterogeneous resource distribution. In these situations, social forces improve foraging success and have a strong influence on optimal patch departure strategies, causing individuals to stay longer in patches than the optimal foraging theories predict.

[1]  John R. Krebs,et al.  INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF PREDATORS IN A PATCHY ENVIRONMENT. II. THE INFLUENCE OF TRAVEL COSTS AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENT , 1991 .

[2]  Steven V. Viscido,et al.  Simulated evolution of selfish herd behavior. , 2005, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  Penelope A. Hancock,et al.  An individual based model of bearded pig abundance , 2005 .

[4]  D. Fielding Intraspecific competition and spatial heterogeneity alter life history traits in an individual-based model of grasshoppers☆ , 2004 .

[5]  H. Possingham,et al.  Habitat Selection and Population Regulation in Temporally Fluctuating Environments , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[6]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[7]  S. L. Lima,et al.  SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR LANDSCAPE‐LEVEL INTERPATCH MOVEMENTS , 1999 .

[8]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  Influence of Conspecific Attraction on the Spatial Distribution of Learning Foragers in a Patchy Habitat. , 1997 .

[9]  C. Clark,et al.  Foraging and Flocking Strategies: Information in an Uncertain Environment , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[10]  Sean A. Rands,et al.  Spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs , 2003, Nature.

[11]  Sasha R. X. Dall,et al.  Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  Landscape scale, heterogeneity, and the viability of Serengeti grazers , 2005 .

[13]  E. Laca,et al.  Patch selection by cattle: maximization of intake rate in horizontally heterogeneous pastures , 1995 .

[14]  C. Clark,et al.  Dynamic State Variable Models in Ecology , 2000 .

[15]  E. Charnov Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[16]  Veijo Kaitala,et al.  Resource matching with limited knowledge , 1999 .

[17]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Assessing the Data Requirements of Spatially Explicit Dispersal Models , 1997 .

[18]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Two-Loop Real-Coded Genetic Algorithms with Adaptive Control of Mutation Step Sizes , 2000, Applied Intelligence.

[19]  William W. Hargrove,et al.  Predicting spatial distribution of foragers over large resource landscapes : a modeling analysis of the Ideal Free Distribution , 1997 .

[20]  P. Nonacs State dependent behavior and the Marginal Value Theorem , 2001 .

[21]  Arild O. Gautestad,et al.  Intrinsic Scaling Complexity in Animal Dispersion and Abundance , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[22]  R. Bonser,et al.  Optimal patch use by foraging workers of Lasius fuliginosus, L. niger and Myrmica ruginodis , 1998 .

[23]  P. Hancock,et al.  Modelling the many-wrongs principle: the navigational advantages of aggregation in nomadic foragers. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[24]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Habitat Selection and Population Interactions: The Search for Mechanism , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[25]  J. Rowcliffe,et al.  State–dependent foraging rules for social animals in selfish herds , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  Keith D. Farnsworth,et al.  Animal foraging from an individual perspective: an object orientated model , 1998 .

[27]  B. Saether,et al.  INTERACTIONS BETWEEN A GENERALIST HERBIVORE, THE MOOSE ALCES ALCES, AND ITS FOOD RESOURCES: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF WINTER FORAGING BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO BROWSE AVAILABILITY , 1987 .

[28]  John F. Wilmshurst,et al.  PREDICTIVE MODELS OF MOVEMENT BY SERENGETI GRAZERS , 2004 .

[29]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Habitat selection by two species of nectarivore: habitat quality isolines , 1992 .

[30]  R. M. Austin,et al.  A simulation model of foraging behaviour and the effect of predation risk , 2000 .

[31]  Emilio A. Laca,et al.  The importance of scale of patchiness for selectivity in grazing herbivores , 1999, Oecologia.

[32]  Marten A Koops,et al.  Integrating the Roles of Information and Competitive Ability on the Spatial Distribution of Social Foragers , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[33]  G. Medley,et al.  Ruminating on complexity: macroparasites of wildlife and livestock. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.