Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment

M. W. Katz, Z. Abramsky, B. P. Kotler, Michael L Rosenzweig, O. Alteshtein, G. Vasserman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We explored the behavioral game between a predator, the little egret (Egretta garzetta), and a prey, the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), in a laboratory theater containing three fish pools. We tested the hypotheses that the egrets maximize their total capture success by responding to the fish's antipredatory behavior and that the behaviors of both players respond adaptively to the density distribution of fish among the pools. One experiment presented egrets with 15 fish per pool. The second experiment used a heterogeneous environment: pools 1, 2, and 3 had 10, 15, and 20 fish, respectively. Within each pool, fish could move between a safe, covered microhabitat and a risky, open microhabitat. Only the risky habitat had food, so fish were trading off food and safety by allocating the time spent in the two habitats. Egrets spent more total time in pools with more fish and returned to them sooner. Egrets maximized the number of fish they captured by following the matching rule of the ideal free distribution. The fish used the risky but productive habitat 65% of the time during experiments without egrets, but only 9% during experiments with 15 fish and egrets present somewhere in the theater. In addition, with egrets present, fish fine-tuned their behavior by reducing their use of the risky habitat as the egrets increased the frequency of their visits.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)381-395
Number of pages15
JournalAmerican Naturalist
Volume181
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

foraging
fish
performing arts
habitats
habitat
microhabitats
microhabitat
Egretta garzetta
experiment
ideal free distribution
fish behavior
Carassius auratus
goldfish
food
predators
predator
safety

Keywords

  • Fear management
  • Optimal foraging
  • Predator-prey behavioral game
  • Temporal and spatial cognitive abilities
  • Time allocation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cite this

Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment. / Katz, M. W.; Abramsky, Z.; Kotler, B. P.; Rosenzweig, Michael L; Alteshtein, O.; Vasserman, G.

In: American Naturalist, Vol. 181, No. 3, 2013, p. 381-395.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Katz, MW, Abramsky, Z, Kotler, BP, Rosenzweig, ML, Alteshtein, O & Vasserman, G 2013, 'Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment', American Naturalist, vol. 181, no. 3, pp. 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1086/669156
Katz, M. W. ; Abramsky, Z. ; Kotler, B. P. ; Rosenzweig, Michael L ; Alteshtein, O. ; Vasserman, G. / Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment. In: American Naturalist. 2013 ; Vol. 181, No. 3. pp. 381-395.
@article{eb045312095e42108a25870b8af3e85a,
title = "Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment",
abstract = "We explored the behavioral game between a predator, the little egret (Egretta garzetta), and a prey, the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), in a laboratory theater containing three fish pools. We tested the hypotheses that the egrets maximize their total capture success by responding to the fish's antipredatory behavior and that the behaviors of both players respond adaptively to the density distribution of fish among the pools. One experiment presented egrets with 15 fish per pool. The second experiment used a heterogeneous environment: pools 1, 2, and 3 had 10, 15, and 20 fish, respectively. Within each pool, fish could move between a safe, covered microhabitat and a risky, open microhabitat. Only the risky habitat had food, so fish were trading off food and safety by allocating the time spent in the two habitats. Egrets spent more total time in pools with more fish and returned to them sooner. Egrets maximized the number of fish they captured by following the matching rule of the ideal free distribution. The fish used the risky but productive habitat 65{\%} of the time during experiments without egrets, but only 9{\%} during experiments with 15 fish and egrets present somewhere in the theater. In addition, with egrets present, fish fine-tuned their behavior by reducing their use of the risky habitat as the egrets increased the frequency of their visits.",
keywords = "Fear management, Optimal foraging, Predator-prey behavioral game, Temporal and spatial cognitive abilities, Time allocation",
author = "Katz, {M. W.} and Z. Abramsky and Kotler, {B. P.} and Rosenzweig, {Michael L} and O. Alteshtein and G. Vasserman",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1086/669156",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "181",
pages = "381--395",
journal = "American Naturalist",
issn = "0003-0147",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optimal foraging of little egrets and their prey in a foraging game in a patchy environment

AU - Katz, M. W.

AU - Abramsky, Z.

AU - Kotler, B. P.

AU - Rosenzweig, Michael L

AU - Alteshtein, O.

AU - Vasserman, G.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - We explored the behavioral game between a predator, the little egret (Egretta garzetta), and a prey, the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), in a laboratory theater containing three fish pools. We tested the hypotheses that the egrets maximize their total capture success by responding to the fish's antipredatory behavior and that the behaviors of both players respond adaptively to the density distribution of fish among the pools. One experiment presented egrets with 15 fish per pool. The second experiment used a heterogeneous environment: pools 1, 2, and 3 had 10, 15, and 20 fish, respectively. Within each pool, fish could move between a safe, covered microhabitat and a risky, open microhabitat. Only the risky habitat had food, so fish were trading off food and safety by allocating the time spent in the two habitats. Egrets spent more total time in pools with more fish and returned to them sooner. Egrets maximized the number of fish they captured by following the matching rule of the ideal free distribution. The fish used the risky but productive habitat 65% of the time during experiments without egrets, but only 9% during experiments with 15 fish and egrets present somewhere in the theater. In addition, with egrets present, fish fine-tuned their behavior by reducing their use of the risky habitat as the egrets increased the frequency of their visits.

AB - We explored the behavioral game between a predator, the little egret (Egretta garzetta), and a prey, the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), in a laboratory theater containing three fish pools. We tested the hypotheses that the egrets maximize their total capture success by responding to the fish's antipredatory behavior and that the behaviors of both players respond adaptively to the density distribution of fish among the pools. One experiment presented egrets with 15 fish per pool. The second experiment used a heterogeneous environment: pools 1, 2, and 3 had 10, 15, and 20 fish, respectively. Within each pool, fish could move between a safe, covered microhabitat and a risky, open microhabitat. Only the risky habitat had food, so fish were trading off food and safety by allocating the time spent in the two habitats. Egrets spent more total time in pools with more fish and returned to them sooner. Egrets maximized the number of fish they captured by following the matching rule of the ideal free distribution. The fish used the risky but productive habitat 65% of the time during experiments without egrets, but only 9% during experiments with 15 fish and egrets present somewhere in the theater. In addition, with egrets present, fish fine-tuned their behavior by reducing their use of the risky habitat as the egrets increased the frequency of their visits.

KW - Fear management

KW - Optimal foraging

KW - Predator-prey behavioral game

KW - Temporal and spatial cognitive abilities

KW - Time allocation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874627238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84874627238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/669156

DO - 10.1086/669156

M3 - Article

C2 - 23448887

AN - SCOPUS:84874627238

VL - 181

SP - 381

EP - 395

JO - American Naturalist

JF - American Naturalist

SN - 0003-0147

IS - 3

ER -