Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A risk-balancing trade off between foraging rewards and predation hazard in a shoaling fish

  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In controlled experiments, shoaling European minnows fed in equal numbers on two equally-rewarded food patches, and likewise on unequal patches the numbers feeding reflected food levels. For equal food, minnows did not feed at the patch where they had encountered a simulated diving avian predator, whereas they chose to feed at this risky patch when it was more valuable. By avoiding hazard for equal food, but accepting predator risk for higher food rewards, the minnows performed a risk-balancing trade-off.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cerri RD, Fraser DF (1983) Predation and risk in foraging minnows: balancing conflicting demands. Am Nat 121:552–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill LM (1983) Adaptive flexibility in the foraging behaviour of fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:398–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubb TC, Greenwald L (1982) Sparrows and brushpile: foraging responses to different combinations of predation risk and energy cost. Anim Beh 30:637–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser DF, Huntingford FA (1986) Feeding and avoiding predation hazard: the behavioural response of the prey. Ethology 73:56–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoret 19:16–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin J-GJ, Keenleyside MHA (1984) Foraging on patchily distributed prey by a cichlid fish: a test of the ideal free distribution theory. Anim Behav 32:120–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart PJB (1986) Foraging in teleost fishes. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, London, pp 211–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntingford FA, Giles N (1987) Individual variation in antipredator responses in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Ethology 74:205–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (1986) Predator inspection behaviour in minnow shoals: differences between populations and individuals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:267–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE, Higham A (1988) shoaling fish obtain information about a predator's approach from changes in the behaviour of other shoal members. Ethology (in press)

  • Magurran AE, Oulton W, Pitcher TJ (1985) Vigilant behaviour and shoal size in minnows. Z Tierpsychol 67:167–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE, Pitcher TJ (1983) Foraging, timidity and shoal size in minnows and goldfish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 12:142–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE, Pitcher TJ (1987) Provenance, shoal size and the sociobiology of predator evasion behaviour in minnow shoals. Proc Roy Soc London B 229:439–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1984) Competitive resource sharing: an experimental test of a learning rule for ESSes. Anim Behav 32:233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1985a) Risk of predation taken by parasitised sticklebacks under competition for food. Behaviour 93:203–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1985b) The patch choice model: no alternative to balancing. Am Nat 125:317–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1986) Constraints placed by predators on feeding behaviour. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, London, pp 236–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1987) Tit-for-tat in sticklebacks and the evolution of cooperation. Nature 325:433–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Sutherland WJ (1986) Ideal-free distributions when individuals differ in competitive ability. Anim Behav 34:1222–1242

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ (1980) Some ecological consequences of fish school volumes. Freshwater Biology 10:539–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ (1986) The functions of shoaling behaviour. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, London, pp 294–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ, House AC (1988) Foraging rules for group feeders: area copying depends upon food density in shoaling goldfish. Ethology 76:161–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ, Green DA, Magurran AE (1986) Dicing with death: predator inspection behaviour in minnow shoals. J Fish Biol 28:438–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (1980) Optimal foraging: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WS (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free distribution’. J Anim Ecol 52:821–828

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Animal Biology, University of Wales, LL57 2UW, Bangor, Gwynedd, United Kingdom

    T. J. Pitcher, S. H. Lang & J. A. Turner

Authors
  1. T. J. Pitcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. H. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. A. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pitcher, T.J., Lang, S.H. & Turner, J.A. A risk-balancing trade off between foraging rewards and predation hazard in a shoaling fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22, 225–228 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00300573

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00300573

Keywords

Search

Navigation