On the value of information: studying changes in patch assessment abilities through learning

Little is known about how animals acquire and use prior information, particularly for Bayesian patch assessment strategies. Because different patch assessment strategies rely upon distinct capabilities to obtain information, we analyzed whether foragers can alter their foraging strategy when they exploit predictable patches with periodic renewal. For this, we evaluated if learning contribute to increase foraging efficiency by improving patch assessment abilities in degus (Octodon degus), a diurnal caviomorph rodent from central Chile. Single degus exploited pairs of depleting patches that were renewed daily. During the initial two days of the experiment, degus exploited patches in agreement with a fixed-time strategy, i.e. at the population level, giving-up densities (GUD) were not distinguishable from density-independence (i.e. consumption proportional to initial patch densities), and richer patches were under-exploited. After day five, degus improved significantly their assessment strategy, showing agreement with Bayesian information updating. However, on day 15 and afterwards, degus foraged patches in agreement with a prescient strategy, because GUDs across patches indicated positive density-dependence and equalization of GUDs. Although highly variable, the GUD ratio between rich and poor patches decreased significantly throughout time. Within-subject data showed that as subjects learned patch qualities they showed a tendency toward GUD equalization and differentiation from density-independence. By the end of the experiment, degus allocated more time to richer patches during the initial period of each trial, and allocated similar amounts of time by the end of trials. Further, the first visit of a session was significantly biased toward the rich patch by the final days of the experiment. The results suggest that assessment abilities can change when exploiting novel but predictable patches. When degus can incorporate adequate environmental information, prior and current information may become accurate enough to make animals exploit patches efficiently.

[1]  R. E. Martin,et al.  Feeding Ecology of Two Chilean Caviomorphs in a Central Mediterranean Savanna , 1983 .

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

[3]  Thomas J. Valone,et al.  Information for patch assessment: a field investigation with black-chinned hummingbirds , 1992 .

[4]  J. McNamara.  Optimal patch use in a stochastic environment , 1982 .

[5]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[6]  A. Bender,et al.  The value of food , 1975 .

[7]  F. Bozinovic,et al.  MICROSTRUCTURE OF SUMMER ACTIVITY BOUTS OF DEGUS IN A THERMALLY HETEROGENEOUS HABITAT , 2004 .

[8]  Theunis Piersma,et al.  Incompletely Informed Shorebirds That Face a Digestive Constraint Maximize Net Energy Gain When Exploiting Patches , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[9]  Ola Olsson,et al.  The survival-rate-maximizing policy for Bayesian foragers: wait for good news , 1998 .

[10]  J. Krebs,et al.  Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach , 1978 .

[11]  Richard F. Green,et al.  Bayesian birds: A simple example of Oaten's stochastic model of optimal foraging , 1980 .

[12]  J. M. Elliott,et al.  Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates , 1971 .

[13]  F. Bozinovic.  Nutritional Energetics and Digestive Responses of an Herbivorous Rodent (Octodon degus) to Different Levels of Dietary Fiber , 1995 .

[14]  R. Myers,et al.  Bayesian mating decisions in an amphipod, Gammarus lawrencianus Bousfield , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[15]  A Houston,et al.  The application of statistical decision theory to animal behaviour. , 1980, Journal of theoretical biology.

[16]  J. E. Mazur,et al.  Learning and Behavior , 1966 .

[17]  Larry B. Crowder,et al.  Bluegills continuously update patch giving-up times based on foraging experience , 1994, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  R. H. Smith,et al.  BEHAVIOURAL ECOLOGY ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOUR , 2007 .

[19]  P. Meserve.  Trophic Relationships among Small Mammals in a Chilean Semiarid Thorn Scrub Community , 1981 .

[20]  F. Bozinovic,et al.  Patch use in a diurnal rodent: handling and searching under thermoregulatory costs , 1999 .

[21]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Rates of seed harvest by two species of gerbilline rodents , 1990 .

[22]  Ola Olsson,et al.  Gaining ecological information about Bayesian foragers through their behaviour. II. A field test with woodpeckers , 1999 .

[23]  J. Alonso,et al.  Patch use in cranes: a field test of optimal foraging predictions , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  Alasdair I. Houston,et al.  The value of food: effects of open and closed economies , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  M. Rodríguez-Gironés,et al.  Density-Dependent Patch Exploitation and Acquisition of Environmental Information , 1997, Theoretical population biology.

[26]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[27]  A. V. Asquez.  Vigilance and social foraging in Octodon degus (Rodentia: Octodontidae) in central Chile , 1997 .

[28]  S. Tamm.  Tracking varying environments: sampling by hummingbirds , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  M. Degroot,et al.  Probability and Statistics , 2021, Examining an Operational Approach to Teaching Probability.

[30]  S. Shettleworth.  Cognition, evolution, and behavior , 1998 .

[31]  F. Bozinovic,et al.  A time-energy analysis of daytime surface activity in degus, Octodon degus , 2002 .

[32]  Thomas J. Valone,et al.  Measuring Patch Assessment Abilities of Desert Granivores , 1989 .

[33]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Prey Distribution as a Factor Determining the Choice of Optimal Foraging Strategy , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[34]  T. Valone,et al.  Foraging under Multiple Costs: The Importance of Predation, Energetic, and Assessment Error Costs to a Desert Forager , 1999 .

[35]  G. W. Fulk.  Notes on the Activity, Reproduction, and Social Behavior of Octodon degus , 1976 .

[36]  J. Gibbon,et al.  Tracking a fluctuating environment: a study of sampling , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[37]  O. Olsson,et al.  Optimal Bayesian foraging policies and prey population dynamics-some comments on Rodriguez-Girones and Vasquez. , 2000, Theoretical population biology.

[38]  Thomas J. Valone,et al.  Bayesian and prescient assessment: foraging with pre-harvest information , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[39]  Craig R. M. McKenzie,et al.  Rational models as theories – not standards – of behavior , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  M. Mangel.  Dynamic information in uncertain and changing worlds. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[41]  Fabian M Jaksic,et al.  Effects of Predation Risk on Space Use by Small Mammals: A Field Experiment with a Neotropical Rodent , 1995 .

[42]  Francisco Bozinovic,et al.  The influence of habitat on travel speed, intermittent locomotion, and vigilance in a diurnal rodent , 2002 .

[43]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Patch Assessment in Fox Squirrels: The Role of Resource Density, Patch Size, and Patch Boundaries , 1996, The American Naturalist.

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

[45]  R. Vásquez,et al.  PATCH UTILIZATION BY THREE SPECIES OF CHILEAN RODENTS DIFFERING IN BODY SIZE AND MODE OF LOCOMOTION , 1996 .

[46]  G. Visser,et al.  Cost of living in free-ranging degus (Octodon degus): seasonal dynamics of energy expenditure. , 2004, Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology.