Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A practical guide to avoid giving up on giving-up densities

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

Abstract

The giving-up density (GUD) framework provides a powerful experimental approach with a strong theoretical underpinning to quantify foraging outcomes in heterogeneous landscapes. Since its inception, the GUD approach has been applied successfully to a vast range of foraging species and foraging scenarios. However, its application is not simple, as anyone who has tried to use it for the first time might attest. Limitations of the technique were noted at its conception, yet only the artificiality of the patches, the appropriateness of the food resource, and the possibility of multiple visiting foragers were identified. Here we show the current uses of GUD and outline the practical benefits as well as the often overlooked limitations of the technique. We define seven major points that need to be addressed when applying this methodology: (1) the curvilinearity between harvest rate and energy, (2) the energetic state of the forager, (3) the effect of group foraging, (4) food quality and substrate properties, (5) the predictability of the patch, (6) behavioral traits of the forager, and (7) nontarget species. We also suggest how GUD experiments can be enhanced by incorporating complementary methods (such as cameras) to better understand the foraging processes involved in the GUD itself. We conclude that the benefits of using GUD outweigh the costs, but that its limitations should not be ignored. Incorporating new methods when using GUD can potentially offer novel and important insights into the study of foraging behavior.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML, Elbaz M, Ziv Y (2005) Does interspecific competition from congeners cause the scarcity of Gerbillus henleyi in productive sandy desert habitats? J Anim Ecol 74:567–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML, Subach A (2001) The cost of interspecific competition in two gerbil species. J Anim Ecol 70:561–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Abu Baker MA, Brown JS (2010) Islands of fear: effects of wooded patches on habitat suitability of the striped mouse in a South African grassland. Funct Ecol 24:1313–1322

    Google Scholar 

  • Abu Baker MA, Brown JS (2012) Patch use behaviour of Elephantulus myurus and Micaelamys namaquensis: the role of diet, foraging substrates and escape substrates. Afr J Ecol 50:167–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Alofs KM, Polivka KM (2004) Microhabitat-scale influences of resources and refuge on habitat selection by an estuarine opportunist fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 271:297–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Altendorf KB, Laundré JW, López González CA, Brown JS (2001) Assessing effects of predation risk on foraging behavior of mule deer. J Mammal 82:430–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Amano T, Ushiyama K, Fujita G, Higuchi H (2006) Foraging patch selection and departure by non-omniscient foragers: a field example in white-fronted geese. Ethology 112:544–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Andruskiw M, Fryxell JM, Thompson ID, Baker JA (2008) Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American Marten. Ecology 89:2273–2280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur AD, Pech RP, Dickman CR (2004) Habitat structure mediates the non-lethal effects of predation on enclosed populations of house mice. J Anim Ecol 73:867–877

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Tal O, Kotler BP (2010) State of emergency: behavior of gerbils is affected by the hunger state of their predators. Ecology 91:593–600

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler B, Brown J (2009) Look before you leap: is risk of injury a foraging cost? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1821–1827

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2010) Complex state-dependent games between owls and gerbils. Ecol Lett 13:302–310

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bozinovic F, Vásquez RA (1999) Patch use in a diurnal rodent: handling and searching under thermoregulatory costs. Funct Ecol 13:602–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1992) Patch use under predation risk: I. Models and predictions. Ann Zool Fenn 29:301–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Kotler BP, Mitchell WA (1997) Competition between birds and mammals: a comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils. Evol Ecol 11:757–771

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Kotler BP, Smith RJ, Wirtz WO (1988) The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76:408–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Morgan RA (1995) Effects of foraging behavior and spatial scale on diet selectivity: a test with fox squirrels. Oikos 74:122–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Bytheway J, Carthey AR, Banks P (2013) Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol:1–11

  • Caccia FD, Chaneton EJ, Kitzberger T (2006) Trophic and non-trophic pathways mediate apparent competition through post-dispersal seed predation in a Patagonian mixed forest. Oikos 113:469–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter SP, Bright PW (2003) Reedbeds as refuges for water voles (Arvicola terrestris) from predation by introduced mink (Mustela vison). Biol Conserv 111:371–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • China V, Kotler BP, Shefer N, Brown JS, Abramsky Z (2008) Density-dependent habitat and patch use in gerbils: consequences of safety in numbers? Isr J Ecol Evol 54:373–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Dall SRX, Kotler BP, Bouskila A (2001) Attention, ‘apprehension’ and gerbils searching in patches. Ann Zool Fenn 38:15–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DL, Morris DW (2001) Density-dependent foraging effort of Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Funct Ecol 15:575–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickman CR, Greenville AC, Tamayo B, Wardle GM (2011) Spatial dynamics of small mammals in central Australian desert habitats: the role of drought refugia. J Mammal 92:1193–1209

    Google Scholar 

  • Druce DJ, Brown JS, Kerley GIH, Kotler BP, Mackey RL, Slotow ROB (2009) Spatial and temporal scaling in habitat utilization by klipspringers (Oreotragus oreotragus) determined using giving-up densities. Austral Ecol 34:577–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Embar K, Kotler BP, Mukherjee S (2011) Risk management in optimal foragers: the effect of sightlines and predator type on patch use, time allocation, and vigilance in gerbils. Oikos 120:1657–1666

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanson BG, Fanson KV, Brown JS (2010) Ecological factors affecting the foraging behaviour of Xerus rutilus. Afr Zool 45:265–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Felts J, Schmidt KA (2010) Multitasking and eavesdropping in cotton rats foraging under predation risk. Behav Ecol 21:1080–1086

    Google Scholar 

  • Garb J, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2000) Foraging and community consequences of seed size for coexisting Negev desert granivores. Oikos 88:291–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawlik DE (2002) The effects of prey availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecol Monogr 72:329–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Gideon W, Abramsky Z, Valdivia N, Kotler BP (2005) The role of vegetation characteristics and foraging substrate in organizing a centrifugal gerbil community. J Mammal 86:1009–1014

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutman R, Dayan T (2005) Temporal partitioning: an experiment with two species of spiny mice. Ecology 86:164–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutman R, Dayan T, Levy O, Schubert I, Kronfeld-Schor N (2011) The effect of the lunar cycle on fecal cortisol metabolite levels and foraging ecology of nocturnally and diurnally active spiny mice. PLoS One 6:e23446

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. J Theor Biol 31:295–311

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hay ME, Fuller PJ (1981) Seed escape from heteromyid rodents: the importance of microhabitat and seed preference. Ecology 62:1395–1399

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman CS, Valone TJ (2000) The effect of mammalian predator scent on the foraging behavior of Dipodomys merriami. Oikos 91:139–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández L, Laundré JW, Gurung M (2005) Use of camera traps to measure predation risk in a puma–mule deer system. Wildl Soc Bull 33:353–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochman V, Kotler BP (2006) Effects of food quality, diet preference and water on patch use by Nubian ibex. Oikos 112:547–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtcamp WN, Grant WE, Vinson SB (1997) Patch use under predation hazard: effect of the red imported fire ant on deer mouse foraging behavior. Ecology 78:308–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland JL, Sherman PW (1976) Advantages and disadvantages of bank swallow (Riparia riparia) coloniality. Ecol Monogr 46:33–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Houle A, Vickery WL, Chapman CA (2006) Testing mechanisms of coexistence among two species of frugivorous primates. J Anim Ecol 75:1034–1044

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes JJ, Ward D, Perrin MR (1995) Effects of substrate on foraging decisions by a Namib desert gerbil. J Mammal 76:638–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Iribarren C, Kotler B (2012) Patch use and vigilance behaviour by Nubian ibex: the role of the effectiveness of vigilance. Evol Ecol Res 14:223–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob J, Brown JS (2000) Microhabitat use, giving-up densities and temporal activity as short- and long-term anti-predator behaviors in common voles. Oikos 91:131–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick AM (2003) The impact of thermoregulatory costs on foraging behaviour: a test with American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and eastern grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Evol Ecol Res 5:781–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani SN, Banks PB, McArthur C (2010) Integrating the costs of plant toxins and predation risk in foraging decisions of a mammalian herbivore. Oecologia 164:349–356

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlmann SG, Risenhoover KL (1998) Effects of resource distribution, patch spacing, and preharvest information on foraging decisions of northern bobwhites. Behav Ecol 9:177–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown J, Mukherjee S, Berger-Tal O, Bouskila A (2010) Moonlight avoidance in gerbils reveals a sophisticated interplay among time allocation, vigilance and state-dependent foraging. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1469–1474

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS (1988) Environmental heterogeneity and the coexistence of desert rodents. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:281–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Bouskila A, Mukherjee S, Goldberg T (2004) Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: Seasonal changes in schedules of activity and aprehension. Isr J Zool 50:256–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Dall SRX, Gresser S, Ganey D, Bouskila A (2002) Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: temporal dynamics of resource depletion and apprehension in gerbils. Evol Ecol Res 4:495–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hickey M (1999) Food storability and the foraging behavior of fox squirrels (Sciurus niger). Am Midl Nat 142:77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS, Oldfield A, Thorson J, Cohen D (2001) Foraging substrate and escape substrate: patch use by three species of gerbils. Ecology 82:1781–1790

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Dickman CR, Brown JS (1998) The effects of water on patch use by two Simpson Desert granivores (Corvus coronoides and Pseudomys hermannsburgensis). Austral Ecol 23:574–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Dickman CR, Wasserberg G, Ovadia O (2005) The use of time and space by male and female gerbils exploiting a pulsed resource. Oikos 109:594–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Gross JE, Mitchell WA (1994) Applying patch use to assess aspects of foraging behavior in Nubian ibex. J Wildl Manage 58:299–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs E, Crowther M, Webb J, Dickman C (2012) Population and behavioural responses of native prey to alien predation. Oecologia 168:947–957

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kronfeld-Schor N, Dayan T, Jones ME, Kremer I, Mandelik Y, Wollberg M, Yassur Y, Gaton DD (2001) Retinal structure and foraging microhabitat use of the golden spiny mouse (Acomys russatus). J Mammal 82:1016–1025

    Google Scholar 

  • Landeau L, Terborgh J (1986) Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation. Anim Behav 34:1372–1380

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaver LA, Daly M (2003) Effect of predation risk on selectivity in heteromyid rodents. Behav Process 64:71–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesenjohann T, Eccard J (2008) Foraging under uniform risk from different types of predators. BMC Ecol 8:19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay N (1918) The magic pudding: the adventures of Bunyip Bluegum. Angus & Robertson, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Livoreil B, Giraldeau L-A (1997) Patch departure decisions by spice finches foraging singly or in groups. Anim Behav 54:967–977

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lortie CJ, Ganey DT, Kotler BP (2000) The effects of gerbil foraging on the natural seedbank and consequences on the annual plant community. Oikos 90:399–407

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur C, Orlando P, Banks PB, Brown JS (2012) The foraging tightrope between predation risk and plant toxins: a matter of concentration. Funct Ecol 26:74–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1977a) Do all members of a swarm suffer the same predation? Z Tierpsychol 45:373–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M (1977b) Experiments on the selection by predators against spatial oddity of their prey. Z Tierpsychol 43:311–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr K, Vibe-Petersen S, Jeppesen LL, Bildsøe M, Leirs H (2003) Foraging of multimammate mice, Mastomys natalensis, under different predation pressure: cover, patch-dependent decisions and density-dependent GUDs. Oikos 100:459–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Molokwu MN, Nilsson J-Å, Olsson O (2011) Diet selection in birds: trade-off between energetic content and digestibility of seeds. Behav Ecol 22:639–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris DW (1997) Optimally foraging deer mice in prairie mosaics: a test of habitat theory and absence of landscape effects. Oikos 80:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris DW (2005) Habitat-dependent foraging in a classic predator–prey system: a fable from snowshoe hares. Oikos 109:239–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris DW (2009) Apparent predation risk: tests of habitat selection theory reveal unexpected effects of competition. Evol Ecol Res 11:209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolet BA, Fuld VN, van Rijswijk MEC (2006) Foraging costs and accessibility as determinants of giving-up densities in a swan–pondweed system. Oikos 112:353–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonacs P (2001) State dependent behavior and the marginal value theorem. Behav Ecol 12:71–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O (2006) Bayesian foraging with only two patch types. Oikos 112:285–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Brown JS (2010) Smart, smarter, smartest: foraging information states and coexistence. Oikos 119:292–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Brown JS, Smith HG (2001a) Gain curves in depletable food patches: a test of five models with European starlings. Evol Ecol Res 3:285–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Wiktander U, Holmgren NMA, Nilsson SG (1999) Gaining ecological information about bayesian foragers through their behaviour. II. A field test with woodpeckers. Oikos 87:264–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Wiktander U, Malmqvist A, Nilsson SG (2001b) Variability of patch type preferences in relation to resource availability and breeding success in a bird. Oecologia 127:435–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O, Wiktander U, Nilsson SG (2000) Daily foraging routines and feeding effort of a small bird feeding on a predictable resource. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1457–1461

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2005) Patch shape, connectivity, and foraging by oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). J Mammal 86:569–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2009) Temperature and cloud cover, but not predator urine, affect winter foraging of mice. Ethology 115:641–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovadia O, Zu DH (2003) The effect of intra- and interspecific aggression on patch residence time in Negev Desert gerbils: a competing risk analysis. Behav Ecol 14:583–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin MR, Kotler BP (2005) A test of five mechanisms of species coexistence between rodents in a southern African savanna. Afr Zool 40:55–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson A, Stenberg M (2006) Linking patch-use behavior, resource density, and growth expectations in fish. Ecology 87:1953–1959

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett KN, Hik DS, Newsome AE, Pech RP (2005) The influence of predation risk on foraging behaviour of brushtail possums in Australian woodlands. Wildl Res 32:121–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolsky RH, Price MV (1990) Patch use by Dipodomys deserti (Rodentia: Heteromyidae): profitability, preference, and depletion dynamics. Oecologia 83:83–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell GVN (1985) Sociobiology and adaptive significance of interspecific foraging flocks in the neotropics. Ornithol Monogr:713–732

  • Price MV, Correll RA (2001) Depletion of seed patches by Merriams kangaroo rats: are GUD assumptions met? Ecol Lett 4:334–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol 38:419–422

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall D, Burggren W, French K (2002) Eckert Animal physiology: mechanisms and adaptations, 5th edn. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Raveh A, Kotler BP, Abramsky Z, Krasnov BR (2011) Driven to distraction: detecting the hidden costs of flea parasitism through foraging behaviour in gerbils. Ecol Lett 14:47–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Réale D, Festa-Bianchet M (2003) Predator-induced natural selection on temperament in bighorn ewes. Anim Behav 65:463–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed AW, Kaufman GA, Kaufman DW (2005) Rodent seed predation and GUDs: effect of burning and topography. Can J Zool 83:1279–1285

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemier JN, Storer AJ (2010) Assessing the responses of native small mammals to an incipient invasion of beech bark disease through changes in seed production of American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Am Midl Nat 164:238–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez F, Korine C, Kotler B, Pinshow B (2008a) Ethanol concentration in food and body condition affect foraging behavior in Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus). Naturwissenschaften 95:561–567

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez F, Kotler BP, Korine C, Pinshow B (2008b) Sugars are complementary resources to ethanol in foods consumed by Egyptian fruit bats. J Exp Biol 211:1475–1481

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt KA (2000) Interactions between food chemistry and predation risk in fox squirrels. Ecology 81:2077–2085

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt KA, Brown JS, Morgan RA (1998) Plant defenses as complementary resources: a test with squirrels. Oikos 81:130–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt KA, Lee E, Ostfeld RS, Sieving K (2008) Eastern chipmunks increase their perception of predation risk in response to titmouse alarm calls. Behav Ecol 19:759–763

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS (2003) Mice in space: space use predicts the interaction between mice and songbirds. Ecology 84:3276–3283

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt KA, Ostfeld RS (2008) Eavesdropping squirrels reduce their future value of food under the perceived presence of cache robbers. Am Nat 171:386–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanz LE, Brisson D, Gomes-Solecki M, Ostfeld RS (2011) Linking disease and community ecology through behavioural indicators: immunochallenge of white-footed mice and its ecological impacts. J Anim Ecol 80:204–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanz LE, Previtali MA, Gomes-Solecki M, Brisson D, Ostfeld RS (2012) Immunochallenge reduces risk sensitivity during foraging in white-footed mice. Anim Behav 83:155–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader AM, Brown JS, Kerley GIH, Kotler BP (2008a) Do free-ranging domestic goats show ‘landscapes of fear’? Patch use in response to habitat features and predator cues. J Arid Environ 72:1811–1819

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader AM, Kotler BP, Brown JS, Kerley GIH (2008b) Providing water for goats in arid landscapes: effects on feeding effort with regard to time period, herd size and secondary compounds. Oikos 117:466–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RJ (1995) Harvest rates and escape speeds in two coexisting species of montane ground squirrels. J Mammal 76:189–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Soobramoney S, Perrin MR (2008) A comparison of giving-up densities of five species of granivorous birds. Ostrich 79:101–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer RJ, Cavanough VC, Baxter GS, Kennedy MS (2005) Adult free zones in small mammal populations: response of Australian native rodents to reduced cover. Austral Ecol 30:868–876

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapp P, Lindquist MD (2007) Roadside foraging by kangaroo rats in a grazed short-grass prairie landscape. West N Am Nat 67:368–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg M, Persson A (2005) The effects of spatial food distribution and group size on foraging behaviour in a benthic fish. Behav Process 70:41–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg M, Persson A (2006) Patch use behaviour in benthic fish depends on their long-term growth prospects. Oikos 112:332–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Brown JS, Ydenberg RC (2007) Foraging. Behaviour and ecology, 1st edn. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory, 1st edn. Princenton University Press, Princenton

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes VL, Pech RP, Banks PB, Arthur AD (2004) Foraging behaviour and habitat use by Antechinus flavipes and Sminthopsis murina (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae) in response to predation risk in eucalypt woodland. Biol Conserv 117:331–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauβ A, Solmsdorff KY, Pech R, Jacob J (2008) Rats on the run: removal of alien terrestrial predators affects bush rat behaviour. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1551–1558

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiollay J-M (1999) Frequency of mixed species flocking in tropical forest birds and correlates of predation risk: an intertropical comparison. J Avian Biol 30:282–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Trebatická L, Sundell J, Tkadlec E, Ylönen H (2008) Behaviour and resource use of two competing vole species under shared predation risk. Oecologia 157:707–715

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Valone TJ (1991) Bayesian and prescient assessment: foraging with pre-harvest information. Anim Behav 41:569–577

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gils JA, Schenk IW, Bos O, Piersma T (2003) Incompletely informed shorebirds that face a digestive constraint maximize net energy gain when exploiting patches. Am Nat 161:777–793

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez RA, Grossi B, Márquez IN (2006) On the value of information: studying changes in patch assessment abilities through learning. Oikos 112:298–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlasman KL, Fryxell JM (2002) Seasonal changes in territory use by red squirrels, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, and responses to food augmentation. Can J Zool 80:1957–1965

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserberg G, Kotler BP, Morris DW, Abramsky Z (2007) A field test of the centrifugal community organization model using psammophilic gerbils in Israel's southern coastal plain. Evol Ecol Res 9:299–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster SJ, Dill LM, Butterworth K (2007) The effect of sea lice infestation on the salinity preference and energetic expenditure of juvenile pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64:672–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson GS (1984) Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat. Nature 308:181–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H, Jacob J, Davies MJ, Singleton GR (2002) Predation risk and habitat selection of Australian house mice, Mus domesticus, during an incipient plague: desperate behaviour due to food depletion. Oikos 99:284–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylönen H, Ronkainen H (1994) Breeding suppression in the bank vole as antipredatory adaptation in a predictable environment. Evol Ecol 8:658–666

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunger JA, Meserve PL, Gutiérrez JR (2002) Small-mammal foraging behavior: mechanisms for coexistence and implication for population dynamics. Ecol Monogr 72:561–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziv Y, Kotler BP (2003) Giving-up densities of foraging gerbils: the effect of interspecific competition on patch use. Evol Ecol 17:333–347

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Miguel A. Bedoya-Perez, Alexandra J. R. Carthey, Valentina S. A. Mella, Clare McArthur & Peter B. Banks

Authors
  1. Miguel A. Bedoya-Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra J. R. Carthey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valentina S. A. Mella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Clare McArthur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter B. Banks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel A. Bedoya-Perez.

Additional information

Communicated by P. M. Kappeler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bedoya-Perez, M.A., Carthey, A.J.R., Mella, V.S.A. et al. A practical guide to avoid giving up on giving-up densities. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67, 1541–1553 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1609-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1609-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation