Habitat selection reveals state-dependent foraging trade-offs in a temporally autocorrelated environment

in Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

We use theories of risk allocation to inform trade-offs between foraging in a rich and risky habitat versus using a poor but safe alternative. Recent advances in the theory predict that the length of exposure to good or bad conditions governs risk allocation, and thus habitat choice, when patterns of environmental risk are autocorrelated in time. We investigate the effects of these factors with controlled experiments on a small soil arthropod (Folsomia candida). We subjected animals to nine temporally autocorrelated 16-day feeding treatments varying in both the proportion (0.25, 0.50, and 0.75) and duration (short, medium and long intervals) of time when food was present and absent. We assessed foraging trade-offs by the animals' choice of occupying a risky dry habitat with food (rich) versus a safe moist habitat with no food (poor). Irrespective of autocorrelation in conditions, the proportion of time spent with no food primarily determined habitat selection by these collembolans. Our results imply an energetic threshold below which F. candida are forced to forage in rich and risky habitat despite the possibility of mortality through desiccation. The link to energetic thresholds suggests the possibility of employing state-dependent habitat selection as a leading indicator of habitat change.

Habitat selection reveals state-dependent foraging trade-offs in a temporally autocorrelated environment

in Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution

References

  • AuclercALibourelPASalmonSBelsVPongeJF. 2010. Assessment of movement patterns in Folsomia candida (Hexapoda: Collembola) in the presence of food. Soil Biol Biochem. 42:657659.

  • BayleyMHolmstrupM. 1999. Water vapor absorption in arthropods by accumulation of myoinositol and glucose. Science. 285:19091911.

  • BeauchampGRuxtonGD. 2011. A reassessment of the risk allocation hypothesis: a comment on Lima and Bednekoff. Am Nat. 177:143146.

  • BednekoffPALimaSL. 2011. Risk allocation is a general phenomenon: a reply to Beauchamp and Ruxton. Am Nat. 177:147151.

  • BrownJS. 1988. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 22:3747.

  • BrownJSKotlerBPMitchellWA. 1997. Competition between birds and mammals: a comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils. Evol Ecol. 11:757771.

  • BrownJSLaundréJWGurungM. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal. 80:385399.

  • CrouauYCazesL. 2003. What causes variability in the Folsomia candida reproduction test? Appl Soil Ecol. 22:175180.

  • EdneyEB. 1977. Water balance in land arthropods. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

  • EmbarKRavehAHoffmanIKotlerBP. 2014. Predator facilitation or interference: a game of vipers and owls. Oecologia. 174:13011309.

  • Environment Canada. 2007. Test for measuring survival and reproduction of springtails exposed to contaminants in soil. (Environ Canada Report EPS 1/RM/47); [accessed 2013 Sept 10]. Available at: www.ec.gc.ca.

  • FerrariMCSihAChiversDP. 2009. The paradox of risk allocation: review and prospectus. Anim Behav. 78:579585.

  • FountainMTHopkinSP. 2001. Continuous monitoring of Folsomia candida (Insecta: Collembola) in a metal exposure test. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 48:275286.

  • FountainMTHopkinSP. 2005. Folsomia candida (Collembola): a “standard” soil arthropod. Annu Rev Entomol. 50:201222.

  • FoxGLCoyle-ThompsonCABellingerPFCohenRW. 2007. Phototactic responses to ultraviolet and white light in various species of Collembola, including the eyeless species, Folsomia candida. J Insect Sci. 7:112.

  • HigginsonADFawcettTWTrimmerPCMcNamaraJMHoustonAI. 2012. Generalized optimal risk allocation: foraging and antipredator behavior in a fluctuating environment. Am Nat. 180:589603.

  • HopkinSP. 1997. Biology of the springtails: (Insecta: Collembola). New York (NY): Oxford University Press; p. 90111.

  • HilligsøeHHolmstrupM. 2003. Effects of starvation and body mass on drought tolerance in the soil collembolan Folsomia candida. J Insect Physiol. 49:99104

  • ISO. 1999. Soil quality-inhibition of reproduction of Collembola (Folsomia candida) by soil pollutants. (ISO 11267: 1-16). Geneva: International Standardization Organization.

  • KnightTWMorrisDWHaedrichRL. 2008. Inferring competitive behavior from population census and habitat data. Isr J Ecol Evol. 45:345359.

  • KoivistoEPuseniusJ. 2003. Effects of temporal variation in the risk of predation by least weasel (Mustela nivalis) on feeding behavior of field vole (Microtus agrestis). Evol Ecol. 17:477489.

  • KotlerBPBrownJMuhkerjeeSBerger-TalOBouskilaA. 2010. Moonlight avoidance in gerbils reveals a sophisticated interplay among time allocation, vigilance and state-dependent foraging. Proc R Soc B. 277:14691474.

  • KotlerBPMorrisDWBrownJS. 2007. Behavioural indicators and conservation: wielding “The Biologist's Tricorder.” Isr J Ecol Evol. 53:237244.

  • KroghPH. 2009. Toxicity testing with the collembolans Folsomia fimeteria and Folsomia candida and the results of a ring test. Miljostyrelsen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

  • LimaSLBednekoffPA. 1999. Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat. 153:649659.

  • LudwigDRoweL. 1990. Life history strategies for energy gain and predator avoidance under time constraints. Am Nat. 135:696707.

  • MorrisDW. 2001. Learning from the games animals play: using behavior to assess spatial structure and stochasticity in natural populations. Ann Zool Fennici. 38:3753.

  • MorrisDWDavidsonDL. 2000. Optimally foraging mice match patch use with habitat differences in fitness. Ecology 81:20612066.

  • OlssonOBrownJSSmithHG. 2002. Long-and short-term state-dependent foraging under predation risk: an indication of habitat quality. Anim Behav. 63:981989.

  • [OECD] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2009. Test No. 232: collembolan reproduction test in soil, OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, Section 2. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: .

  • SihAMcCarthyTM. 2002. Prey responses to pulses of risk and safety: testing the risk-allocation hypothesis. Anim Behav. 63:3647.

  • SihAZiembaRHardingKC. 2000. New insights on how temporal variation in predation risk shapes prey behavior. Trends Ecol Evol. 15:34.

  • StaempfliCTarradellasJBecker-van SlootenK. 2007. Effects of dinoseb on energy reserves in the soil arthropod Folsomia candida. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 68:263271.

  • StamEMvan de LeemkuleMAErnstingG. 1996. Trade-offs in the life history and energy budget of the parthenogenetic collembolan Folsomia candida (Willem). Oecologia. 107:283292.

  • SundellJDudekDKlemmeIKoivistoEPuseniusJYlönenH. 2004. Variation in predation risk and vole feeding behaviour: a field test of the risk allocation hypothesis. Oecologia. 139:157162.

  • TullyTFerrièreR. 2008. Reproductive flexibility: genetic variation, genetic costs and long-term evolution in a Collembola. PloS One. 3:e3207.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 22 22 7
Full Text Views 10 10 1
PDF Downloads 5 5 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0