Foraging in a social antelope: Effects of group size on foraging choices and resource perception in impala

被引:52
|
作者
Fritz, H [1 ]
deGarineWichatitsky, M [1 ]
机构
[1] CIRAD, EMVT, HARARE, ZIMBABWE
关键词
Aepyceros melampus; browsing; group foraging; resource perception; selection function;
D O I
10.2307/5672
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
1. Many studies of foraging in social species have identified benefits for individuals from foraging in groups, but few have demonstrated that there are also costs. We wanted to evaluate the effects of the group on individual foraging behaviour in a social antelope, and the way it affects resource perception by the forager when foraging in different group sizes. 2. We monitored the foraging behaviour of impala (Aepyceros melampus Lichtenstein) in Acacia scrubland in highveld Zimbabwe. We investigated the influence of group size on the foraging decisions of focal individuals, and the process by which impala select bushes to feed on, and how many bites to take. 3. We demonstrated that group size had a major influence in the foraging decisions made by the impala, as it determined the number of bites taken from a selected bush by an individual. The cost of foraging in groups was higher when feeding on small bushes, i.e. the potential number of bites to be taken by an individual from low biomass bushes decreased faster with increasing group size than for high biomass bushes. 4. Impala appeared to be frequency-independent 'predators' with strong preferences for high profitability 'prey' types and seem to select bushes ('prey') on a potential gain basis (i.e. potential number of bites to be gained), and not on a strict biomass basis. This result implies that they were taking the group size into account when choosing the bushes. 5. We suggest that impala scanned the Acacia field at the bite level, the field being a mosaic of patches of different bite densities, and that the perception of the resource by individuals in a groups is strongly affected by the number of individuals foraging together.
引用
收藏
页码:736 / 742
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Group size effects on foraging and vigilance in migratory Tibetan antelope
    Lian, Xinming
    Zhang, Tongzuo
    Cao, Yifan
    Su, Jianping
    Thirgood, Simon
    [J]. BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES, 2007, 76 (03) : 192 - 197
  • [2] DIFFERENTIAL FORAGING OF OXPECKERS ON IMPALA IN COMPARISON WITH SYMPATRIC ANTELOPE SPECIES
    HART, BL
    HART, LA
    MOORING, MS
    [J]. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY, 1990, 28 (03) : 240 - 249
  • [3] Foraging competition, vigilance and group size in two species of gregarious antelope
    Dalerum, Fredrik
    Lange, Henrik
    Skarpe, Christina
    Rooke, Tuulikki
    Inga, Berit
    Bateman, Philip W.
    [J]. SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH, 2008, 38 (02): : 138 - 145
  • [4] Effects of group size and personality on social foraging: the distribution of sheep across patches
    Michelena, Pablo
    Sibbald, Angela M.
    Erhard, Hans W.
    McLeod, James E.
    [J]. BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY, 2009, 20 (01) : 145 - 152
  • [5] GROUP FORAGING IN WILD BROWN HARES - EFFECTS OF RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION AND SOCIAL-STATUS
    MONAGHAN, P
    METCALFE, NB
    [J]. ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 1985, 33 (AUG) : 993 - 999
  • [6] PREY SIZE, PREY PERISHABILITY AND GROUP FORAGING IN A SOCIAL SPIDER
    RYPSTRA, AL
    TIREY, RS
    [J]. OECOLOGIA, 1991, 86 (01) : 25 - 30
  • [7] Effects of predation risk on foraging behaviour and group size: adaptations in a social cooperative species
    Sorato, Enrico
    Gullett, Philippa R.
    Griffith, Simon C.
    Russell, Andrew F.
    [J]. ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2012, 84 (04) : 823 - 834
  • [8] Visual perception and social foraging in birds
    Fernández-Juricic, E
    Erichsen, JT
    Kacelnik, A
    [J]. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2004, 19 (01) : 25 - 31
  • [9] THERE IS NO OPTIMAL FORAGING GROUP-SIZE
    RANTA, E
    [J]. ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 1993, 46 (05) : 1032 - 1035
  • [10] Group size, communication, and familiarity effects in foraging human teams
    Oesch, Nathan
    Dunbar, Robin I. M.
    [J]. ETHOLOGY, 2018, 124 (07) : 483 - 495