Subhabitat selection by foraging threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): previous experience and social conformity

Any mechanism that allows animals to increase their foraging efficiency is likely to be selected for, including the ability to learn to recognise and subsequently discriminate between habitat types based on their profitability. In a series of laboratory studies, we manipulated prey densities across...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 2006-05, Vol.60 (1), p.77-86
Main Authors: Webster, Michael M, Hart, Paul J. B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agnatha and pisces
Animal behavior
Animal ethology
Biological and medical sciences
Birds
Brackish
Conspecifics
Experimentation
Fish
Foraging
Freshwater
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Gravel
Marine
memory
Optimal foraging
Prey
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Public information
Rank tests
Shoals
Social behavior
Social conformity
T tests
Time management
Vertebrata
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Any mechanism that allows animals to increase their foraging efficiency is likely to be selected for, including the ability to learn to recognise and subsequently discriminate between habitat types based on their profitability. In a series of laboratory studies, we manipulated prey densities across two different experimental subhabitats and demonstrated that threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) can develop foraging preferences for subhabitats that have previously yielded prey. Fish were not recalling the spatial location of prey patches; rather, they were discriminating between subhabitats based on foraging experience there and allocating foraging effort accordingly. Foraging preferences took around 14 days to develop, and once established, they persisted independently of experimental prey density, suggesting that fish were using experience rather than real-time sampling to select foraging grounds. When we presented focal fish with social information cues, we found that they preferentially used local enhancement and current public information cues when they conflicted with previous experience, but that they did not use prior public information. This suggests that in the presence of conspecifics, individuals prioritise social conformity over the use of private information. We discuss our results in the context of optimal foraging and the trade-offs associated with balancing conflicting private and social information.
ISSN:0340-5443
1432-0762
DOI:10.1007/s00265-005-0143-3