Social foraging and time of access to patch zones in rats

  1. Ávila-Chauvet, Laurent
  2. Ojeda Aguilar, Yancarlo Lizandro
  3. García-Leal, Oscar
  4. Mejía Cruz, Diana
  5. Esparza, Carlos
Journal:
Revista mexicana de análisis de la conducta = Mexican journal of behavior analysis

ISSN: 0185-4534

Year of publication: 2024

Volume: 50

Issue: 1

Pages: 7-18

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5514/RMAC.V50.I1.88700 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista mexicana de análisis de la conducta = Mexican journal of behavior analysis

Abstract

In social foraging situations, some group members tend to search their food sources (producers), while others tend to join a previously discovered food source (scroungers). Rate maximization model and agent-based models predict that the proportion of scroungers within the group should increase as the finder share decreases. We propose a novel experimental preparation to study the effects of the finder share on the proportion of scroungers in a social foraging situation by controlling the access time to the patch zones. As the access time to discovered patch zones decreased, the opportunity to join patch zones decreased too, and the finder share increased. Our results matched the models’ prediction in the sense that the proportion of producer responses decreased, and the number of scroungers increased as the access time to the patch zones increased.

Bibliographic References

  • Afshar, M. & Giraldeau, L. A. (2014). A unified modelling approach for producer–scrounger games in complex ecological conditions. Animal Behaviour, 96, 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.07.022
  • Alfaro, L., & Cabrera, R. (2021). Effect of group size on producer–scrounger strategies of Wistar rats. Behavioural Processes, 182, 104280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2020.104280
  • Alfaro, L., García-Leal, Ó., & Cabrera, R. (2010). Estrategias de búsqueda y consumo de alimento en grupos de ratas expuestos a diferentes distribuciones de alimento. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta,36(2), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.5514/rmac.v36.i2.18485
  • Barnard, C. J. & Sibly, R. M. (1981). Producers and scroungers: a general model and its application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Animal Behaviour, 29(2), 543-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80117-0
  • Barou-Dagues, M., Richard-Dionne, É., & Dubois, F. (2020). Do female zebra finches prefer males exhibiting greater plasticity in foraging tactic use? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 74, 1-12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48727801
  • Beauchamp, G. & Giraldeau, L. A. (1996). Group foraging revisited: Information sharing or producer-scrounger game? American Naturalist, 738-743. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2556327
  • Beauchamp, G. U. Y. (2000). Learning rules for social foragers: implications for the producer–scrounger game and ideal free distribution theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 207(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2153
  • Dubois, F., & Richard‐Dionne, É. (2020). Consequences of multiple simultaneous opportunities to exploit others' efforts on free riding. Ecology and Evolution, 10(10), 4343-4351. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6201
  • Escobar, R., Hernández-Ruiz, M., Santillán, N., & Pérez-Herrera, C. A. (2012). Nota técnica: diseño simplificado de una interfaz de bajo costo usando un puerto paralelo y Visual Basic. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 38(1), 72-85.
  • Gabín, B., Camerino, O., Castañer, M., & Anguera, M. T. (2012). LINCE: new software to integrate registers and analysis on behavior observation. Procedia Computer Science Technology.
  • Giraldeau, L. A., & Livoreil, B. (1998). Game theory and social foraging. En L. A. Dugatkin & H. K. Reeve (Eds.), Game theory and animal behavior(pp. 16-37). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195096927.003.0002
  • Giraldeau, L. A., Soos, C., & Beauchamp, G. (1994). A test of the producer-scrounger foraging game in captive flocks of spice finches, Loncbura punctulata. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 34(4), 251-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00183475
  • Gurley, K. (2019). Two open source designs for a low‐cost operant chamber using raspberry pi™. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 111(3), 508-518. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.520
  • Harten, L., Matalon, Y., Galli, N., Navon, H., Dor, R., & Yovel, Y. (2018). Persistent producer-scrounger relationships in bats. Science Advances, 4(2), e1603293. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603293
  • Pérez-Herrera, C. A., Escobar, R., & Gutiérrez, B. (2018). A mobile interface using android® devices for operant laboratory courses. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 44(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.5514/rmac.v44.i1.65352
  • Sacramento, T. S., & Bicca-Marques, J. C. (2022). Scrounging marmosets eat more when the finder's share is low without changing their searching effort. Animal Behaviour, 183, 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.11.003
  • Vickery, W. L., Giraldeau, L. A., Templeton, J. J., Kramer, D. L. & Chapman, C. A. (1991). Producers, scroungers, and group foraging. American Naturalist, 847-863. https://doi.org/10.1086/285197
Data source: Dialnet