| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1996 International Society for Behavioral Ecology
research-article |
Rate currencies and the foraging starling: the fallacy of the averages revisited
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
ABSTRACT
In classical optimal foraging models long-term rate of energy intake (the ratio of expected amount of food over expected time) is assumed to be the maximized currency, because doing this is consistent with minimizing the loss of alternative opportunities. Here this possibility and various alternatives are examined quantitatively using European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in the laboratory The birds chose between two cues. One signaled an option that led to either a fixed delay to food ("single standard," Experiment 1) or to one of two equally probable delays to food ("double standard," Experiments 2 and 3). The other cue signaled an "adjusting option" consisting of a single delay to food. This option adjusted according to the previous choices made by the birds, improving when the standard had been preferred and worsening when the adjusting option had been preferred. Adjustments were made either by changing the delay to food or the amount of food. The rationale underlying this procedure was that the parameter values at which the adjusting option stabilizes should reflect the subjective value of the standard. This was validated in Experiment 1. In Experiments 2 and 3 the adjusting option fluctuated around parameter values that are interpreted as yielding subjective equivalents of the double standard. The results contradict the predictions based on minimizing the lost opportunity. First, the birds did not include all the time intervals in their assignment of value to the two options, and second, the birds used the expected ratio of amount over time rather than the ratio of expected amount over expected time as their rate currency.[Behav Ecol 7: 341–352 (1996)]
Key words: currency, European starling, optimal foraging, rate maximization.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. W. Stephens Decision ecology: Foraging and the ecology of animal decision making Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci, December 1, 2008; 8(4): 475 - 484. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. E. Henly, A. Ostdiek, E. Blackwell, S. Knutie, A. S. Dunlap, and D. W. Stephens The discounting-by-interruptions hypothesis: model and experiment Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 154 - 162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Schuck-Paim and A. Kacelnik Choice processes in multialternative decision making Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2007; 18(3): 541 - 550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. R Stevens, E. V Hallinan, and M. D Hauser The ecology and evolution of patience in two New World monkeys Biol Lett, June 22, 2005; 1(2): 223 - 226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. A. Waite Background context and decision making in hoarding gray jays Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2001; 12(3): 318 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. W. Stephens and D. Anderson The adaptive value of preference for immediacy: when shortsighted rules have farsighted consequences Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2001; 12(3): 330 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. M. Bautista, J. Tinbergen, and A. Kacelnik To walk or to fly? How birds choose among foraging modes PNAS, January 30, 2001; 98(3): 1089 - 1094. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Sandlin Cue use affects resource subdivision among three coexisting hummingbird species Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2000; 11(5): 550 - 559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Brito e Abreu and A. Kacelnik Energy budgets and risk-sensitive foraging in starlings Behav. Ecol., May 1, 1999; 10(3): 338 - 345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|