Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Optimal Foraging and Beyond: How Starlings Cope with Changes in Food Availability

Luis M. Bautista, Alex Kacelnik, Joost Tinbergen and Popko Wiersma
The American Naturalist
Vol. 152, No. 4 (October 1998), pp. 543-561
DOI: 10.1086/286189
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/286189
Page Count: 19
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($19.00)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Optimal Foraging and Beyond: How Starlings Cope with Changes in Food Availability
Preview not available

Abstract

ABSTRACT Foraging adaptations include behavioral and physiological responses, but most optimal foraging models deal exclusively with behavioral decision variables, taking other dimensions as constraints. To overcome this limitation, we measured behavioral and physiological responses of European starlings Sturnus vulgaris to changes in food availability in a laboratory environment. The birds lived in a closed economy with a choice of two foraging modes (flying and walking) and were observed under two treatments (hard and easy) that differed in the work required to obtain food. Comparing the hard with the easy treatment, we found the following differences. In the hard treatment, daily amount of work was higher, but daily intake was lower. Even though work was greater, total daily expenditure was smaller, partly because overnight metabolism was lower. Body mass was lower, but daily oscillation in body mass did not differ. Feces' caloric density was lower, indicating greater food utilization. Energy expenditure rate expressed as multiples of basal metabolic rate (BMR) increased during the working period from 3.5 x BMR (easy) to 5.2 x BMR (hard), but over the 24‐h period, it was close to 2.4 x BMR in both treatments. We also found that rate of expenditure during flight was very high in both treatments (52.3 W in easy and 45.5 W in hard), as expected for short (as opposed to cruising) flights. The relative preferences between walking and flying were incompatible with maximizing the ratio of energy gains per unit of expenditure (efficiency) but compatible with maximizing net gain per unit of time during the foraging cycle (net rate). Neither currency explained the results when nonforaging time was included. Time was not a direct constraint: the birds rested more than 90% of the time in both treatments. Understanding this complex picture requires reasoning with ecological, physiological, and cognitive arguments. We defend the role of optimality as an appropriate tool to guide this integrative perspective.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1
    1
  • Thumbnail: Page 
2
    2
  • Thumbnail: Page 
3
    3
  • Thumbnail: Page 
4
    4
  • Thumbnail: Page 
5
    5
  • Thumbnail: Page 
6
    6
  • Thumbnail: Page 
7
    7
  • Thumbnail: Page 
8
    8
  • Thumbnail: Page 
9
    9
  • Thumbnail: Page 
10
    10
  • Thumbnail: Page 
11
    11
  • Thumbnail: Page 
12
    12
  • Thumbnail: Page 
13
    13
  • Thumbnail: Page 
14
    14
  • Thumbnail: Page 
15
    15
  • Thumbnail: Page 
16
    16
  • Thumbnail: Page 
17
    17
  • Thumbnail: Page 
18
    18
  • Thumbnail: Page 
19
    19