Search

Interference competition may lead to a tragedy of the commons in which individuals driven by self-interest reduce the fitness of the entire group. We investigated this hypothesis in Allenby's gerbils, Gerbillus andersoni allenbyi, by comparing foraging behaviors of single vs. pairs of gerbils. We recorded strong interference competition within the foraging pairs. Competition reduced the amount of time the gerbils spent foraging, as well as foraging efficiency since part of the foragers' attention was directed toward detecting competitors (apparent predation risk). Single gerbils harvested significantly more food than the combined efforts of two gerbils foraging together. Competition reduced the success of both individuals within a pair by more than 50%, making this a case of the tragedy of the commons where each individual's investment in competition reduces the success of all individuals within the group, including its own. Despite their great costs, competitive behaviors will be selected for as long as one individual achieves higher fitness than the other. In nature, interspecific interactions, such as predation risk, may act to reduce and regulate the deleterious effects of intraspecific competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In predator-prey foraging games, predators should respond to variations in prey state. The value of energy for the prey changes depending on season. Prey in a low energetic state and/or in a reproductive state should invest more in foraging and tolerate higher prédation risk. This should make the prey more catchable, and thereby, more preferable to predators. We ask, can predators respond to prey state? How does season and state affect the foraging game from the predator's perspective? By letting owls choose between gerbils whose states we experimentally manipulated, we could demonstrate predator sensitivity to prey state and predator selectivity that otherwise may be obscured by the foraging game. During spring, owls invested more time and attacks in the patch with well-fed gerbils. During summer, owls attacked both patches equally, yet allocated more time to the patch with hungry gerbils. Energetic state per se does not seem to be the basis of owl choice. The owls strongly responded to these subtle differences. In summer, gerbils managed their behavior primarily for survival, and the owls equalized capture opportunities by attacking both patches equally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Risk-taking behaviour has been linked to testosterone, and is mostly studied in males. • We studied the link between risk-taking behaviours and testosterone in both sexes. • We found no sex differences in this relationship in free-living gerbils. • Males and females with higher testosterone levels tended to take fewer risks. • Testosterone mediates complex context-dependant risk-taking strategies. Among the physiological differences between the sexes are circulating androgen levels. Testosterone (T) is an androgen that has been linked to aggression and risk-taking in male vertebrates, so that males with higher T are generally more aggressive and take more risks. In females, T is not often measured, and its relationship with behaviour has been less studied. The costs of elevated T are assumed to be higher for reproductive females, while the benefits higher for males. Here, we tested the association between endogenous T and risk-taking behaviours in both males and females under well-studied experimental settings in free-living Baluchistan gerbils (Gerbillus nanus ; Gn). In addition, we experimentally elevated Gn T levels using implants and measured risk-taking behaviour. Surprisingly, we found that there were no differences in the association between T and risk-taking behaviours between males and females, and that in both sexes, Gn with higher T levels took fewer risks. We also found that Gn spent equal time foraging between risky (open habitat) and safe (under a bush) experimental food patches. We expected Gn, which are nocturnal, to take fewer risks during full moon nights, but found that Gn were more active during moon lit nights than during dark (new moon) nights. This study demonstrates that T has many functions, and that its effects are complex and often unpredictable. It also shows that hypotheses regarding the propensity to take risks under specific coverage and light regimes are not universal, and likely include variables such as species, environment, context, and predator-specific behavioural strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand whether a parasite can exploit a novel invasive host species, we measured reproductive performance (number of eggs per female per day, egg size, development rate and size of new imagoes) of fleas from the Negev desert in Israel (two host generalists, Synosternus cleopatrae and Xenopsylla ramesis, and a host specialist, Parapulex chephrenis) when they exploited either a local murid host (Gerbillus andersoni, Meriones crassus and Acomys cahirinus) or two alien hosts (North American heteromyids, Chaetodipus penicillatus and Dipodomys merriami). We asked whether (1) reproductive performance of a flea differs between an alien and a characteristic hosts and (2) this difference is greater in a host specialist than in host generalists. The three fleas performed poorly on alien hosts as compared to local hosts, but the pattern of performance differed both among fleas and within fleas between alien hosts. The response to alien hosts did not depend on the degree of host specificity of a flea. We conclude that successful parasite colonisation of an invasive host is determined by some physiological, immunological and/or behavioural compatibility between a host and a parasite. This compatibility is unique for each host-parasite association, so that the success of a parasite to colonise an invasive host is unpredictable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parasites are thought to have numerous negative effects on their hosts. These negative effects may be associated with stress in a host., We evaluated the effects of four species of flea ectoparasites ( Parapulex chephrenis, Synosternus cleopatrae, Xenopsylla conformis and Xenopsylla ramesis) on non-specific responses of eight species of rodents ( Meriones crassus, Gerbillus dasyurus, Gerbillus andersoni, Gerbillus pyramidum, Gerbillus nanus, Acomys cahirinus, Acomys russatus and Mesocricetus auratus) and measured faecal glucocorticoid metabolites concentrations ( FGMC) produced by the hosts., We found no effect of body mass of an individual rodent on FGMCs. Parasitism by fleas with a 'stay on the host body' exploitation strategy was associated with higher host FGMCs than parasitism by fleas that spent most of their life 'off-host'. FGMCs among rodents infested by the same flea species were correlated positively with the phylogenetic distance of a given rodent from the principal host of this flea; changes in FGMCs were lower in the host species more closely related to the flea's principal host. Changes in FMGCs of a host while parasitized were correlated with a host's change in body mass, where hosts that lost more body mass had higher FGMCs., Our results suggest that ectoparasitism can be stressful to their hosts. However, the occurrence of parasite-induced stress seems to depend on the identity of both host and parasite species and the evolutionary history of a host-parasite association. To our knowledge, this is the first multispecies study to evaluate the effect of ectoparasites on glucocorticoid hormones in small mammals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behavioral games predators play among themselves may have profound effects on behavioral games predators play with their prey. We studied the behavioral game between predators and prey within the framework of social foraging among predators. We tested how conspecific interactions among predators (little egret) change the predator-prey behavioral game and foraging success. To do so, we examined foraging behavior of egrets alone and in pairs (male and female) in a specially designed aviary consisting of three equally spaced pools with identical initial prey (comet goldfish) densities. Each pool was comprised of a risky microhabitat, rich with food, and a safe microhabitat with no food, forcing the fish to trade off food and safety. When faced with two versus one egret, we found that fish significantly reduced activity in the risky habitat. Egrets in pairs suffered reduced foraging success (negative intraspecific density dependence) and responded to fish behavior and to their conspecific by changing their visiting regime at the different pools-having shorter, more frequent visits. The time egret spent on each visit allowed them to match their long-term capture success rate across the environment to their capture success rate in the pool, which satisfies one aspect of optimality. Overall, egrets in pairs allocated more time for foraging and changed their foraging tactics to focus more on fish under cover and fish 'peeping' out from their shelter. These results suggest that both prey and predator show behavioral flexibility and can adjust to changing conditions as needed in this foraging game.

In a foraging game, predators must catch elusive prey while avoiding injury. Predators manage their hunting success with behavioral tools such as habitat selection, time allocation, and perhaps daring-the willingness to risk injury to increase hunting success. A predator's level of daring should be state dependent: the hungrier it is, the more it should be willing to risk injury to better capture prey. We ask, in a foraging game, will a hungry predator be more willing to risk injury while hunting? We performed an experiment in an outdoor vivarium in which barn owls (Tyto alba) were allowed to hunt Allenby's gerbils (Gerbillus andersoni allenbyi) from a choice of safe and risky patches. Owls were either well fed or hungry, representing the high and low state, respectively. We quantified the owls' patch use behavior. We predicted that hungry owls would be more daring and allocate more time to the risky patches. Owls preferred to hunt in the safe patches. This indicates that owls manage risk of injury by avoiding the risky patches. Hungry owls doubled their attacks on gerbils, but directed the added effort mostly toward the safe patch and the safer, open areas in the risky patch. Thus, owls dared by performing a risky action-the attack maneuver-more times, but only in the safest places-the open areas. We conclude that daring can be used to manage risk of injury and owls implement it strategically, in ways we did not foresee, to minimize risk of injury while maximizing hunting success.

In predator-prey foraging games, the prey's reaction to one type of predator may either facilitate or hinder the success of another predator. We ask, do different predator species affect each other's patch selection? If the predators facilitate each other, they should prefer to hunt in the same patch; if they interfere, they should prefer to hunt alone. We performed an experiment in a large outdoor vivarium where we presented barn owls (Tyto alba) with a choice of hunting greater Egyptian gerbils (Gerbillus pyramidum) in patches with or without Saharan horned vipers (Cerastes cerastes). Gerbils foraged on feeding trays set under bushes or in the open. We monitored owl location, activity, and hunting attempts, viper activity and ambush site location, and the foraging behavior of the gerbils in bush and open microhabitats. Owls directed more attacks towards patches with vipers, and vipers were more active in the presence of owls. Owls and vipers facilitated each other's hunting through their combined effect on gerbil behavior, especially on full moon nights when vipers are more active. Owls forced gerbils into the bushes where vipers preferred to ambush, while viper presence chased gerbils into the open where they were exposed to owls. Owls and vipers took advantage of their indirect positive effect on each other. In the foraging game context, they improve each other's patch quality and hunting success.

Foraging animals have several tools for managing the risk of predation, and the foraging games between them and their predators. Among these, time allocation is foremost, followed by vigilance and apprehension. Together, their use influences a forager's time allocation and giving-up density (GUD) in depletable resource patches. We examined Allenby's gerbils (Gerbilus andersoni allenbyi) exploiting seed resource patches in a large vivarium under varying moon phases in the presence of a red fox (Vulpes vulpes). We measured time allocated to foraging patches electronically and GUDs from seeds left behind in resource patches. From these, we estimated handling times, attack rates and quitting harvest rates (QHRs). Gerbils displayed greater vigilance (lower attack rates) at brighter moon phases (full < wane < wax < new). Similarly, they displayed higher GUDs at brighter moon phases (wax > full > new > wane). Finally, gerbils displayed higher QHRs at new and waxing moon phases. Differences across moon phases not only reflect changing time allocation and vigilance, but changes in the state of the foragers and their marginal value of energy. Early in the lunar cycle, gerbils rely on vigilance and sacrifice state to avoid risk; later they defend state at the cost of increased time allocation; finally their state can recover as safe opportunities expand. In the predator-prey foraging game, foxes may contribute to these patterns of behaviours by modulating their own activity in response to the opportunities presented in each moon phase.

Theory states that an optimal forager should exploit a patch so long as its harvest rate of resources from the patch exceeds its energetic, predation, and missed opportunity costs for foraging. However, for many foragers, predation is not the only source of danger they face while foraging. Foragers also face the risk of injuring themselves. To test whether risk of injury gives rise to a foraging cost, we offered red foxes pairs of depletable resource patches in which they experienced diminishing returns. The resource patches were identical in all respects, save for the risk of injury. In response, the foxes exploited the safe patches more intensively. They foraged for a longer time and also removed more food (i.e., had lower giving up densities) in the safe patches compared to the risky patches. Although they never sustained injury, video footage revealed that the foxes used greater care while foraging from the risky patches and removed food at a slower rate. Furthermore, an increase in their hunger state led foxes to allocate more time to foraging from the risky patches, thereby exposing themselves to higher risks. Our results suggest that foxes treat risk of injury as a foraging cost and use time allocation and daring-the willingness to risk injury-as tools for managing their risk of injury while foraging. This is the first study, to our knowledge, which explicitly tests and shows that risk of injury is indeed a foraging cost. While nearly all foragers may face an injury cost of foraging, we suggest that this cost will be largest and most important for predators.