» Articles » PMID: 19779627

Look Before You Leap: is Risk of Injury a Foraging Cost?

Overview
Date 2009 Sep 26
PMID 19779627
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Desert Ants Learn to Avoid Pitfall Traps While Foraging.

Bar A, Marom C, Zorin N, Gilad T, Subach A, Foitzik S Biology (Basel). 2022; 11(6).

PMID: 35741418 PMC: 9219994. DOI: 10.3390/biology11060897.


Hostile Interactions of Punjab Urial () towards Indian Gazelle () during Feeding Sessions in Captive Breeding Settings.

Khattak R, Teng L, Mehmood T, Rehman E, Zhang Z, Liu Z Animals (Basel). 2021; 11(5).

PMID: 33925204 PMC: 8145856. DOI: 10.3390/ani11051274.


Fear, foraging and olfaction: how mesopredators avoid costly interactions with apex predators.

Haswell P, Jones K, Kusak J, Hayward M Oecologia. 2018; 187(3):573-583.

PMID: 29654482 PMC: 6018578. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-018-4133-3.


Cotton Rats Alter Foraging in Response to an Invasive Ant.

Darracq A, Conner L, Brown J, McCleery R PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0163220.

PMID: 27655320 PMC: 5031446. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163220.


To dare or not to dare? Risk management by owls in a predator-prey foraging game.

Embar K, Raveh A, Burns D, Kotler B Oecologia. 2014; 175(3):825-34.

PMID: 24810326 DOI: 10.1007/s00442-014-2956-0.


References
1.
Charnov E . Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 1976; 9(2):129-36. DOI: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x. View

2.
Mukherjee S, Zelcer M, Kotler B . Patch use in time and space for a meso-predator in a risky world. Oecologia. 2008; 159(3):661-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-008-1243-3. View

3.
Janzen D . COEVOLUTION OF MUTUALISM BETWEEN ANTS AND ACACIAS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. Evolution. 2017; 20(3):249-275. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1966.tb03364.x. View