Skip to main content
Log in

Position preferences within groups: do whirligigs select positions which balance feeding opportunities with predator avoidance?

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

Abstract

The benefits and costs of group living are likely to be asymmetric within a group. Animals at the edge of a group are more at risk from predators, according to the selfish herd hypothesis, but are also more likely to obtain scattered food resources. Does an animal's choice between these two conflicting positions depend on its body reserves? The hunger level of marked whirligig beetles (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae) was manipulated and the positions of individuals relative to the rest of the group on the surface of the water were determined with image analysis software. In 12 out of 13 groups, of approximately 18 beetles each, hungry beetles were closer to the edge of a group and had a higher distance to their nearest neighbor than well-fed beetles. Hungry beetles at the edge obtained nearly all of the food particles dropped onto the surface of the water. These results show that position preferences within groups may involve a dynamic feedback between foraging, predator avoidance, and shortterm hunger levels.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bendele H (1986) Mechanosensory cues control chasing behaviour of whirligig beetles (Coleoptera, Gyrinidae). J Comp Phyisol A 158:405–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Benfield EF (1972) A defensive secretion of Dineutes discolor (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 65:1324–1327

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JL, Orians GH (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:239–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Brönmark C, Malmqvist B, Otto C (1984) Anti-predator adaptations in a neustonic insect (Velia caprai). Oecologia 61:189–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill LM, Ydenberg RC (1987) The group size-flight distance relationship in water striders (Gerris remigis). Can J Zool 65:223–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggers DM (1976) The theoretical effects of schooling by planktivorous fish predators on rate of prey consumption. J Fish Res Board Can 33:1964–1971

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster WA, Treherne JE (1981) Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature 295:466–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Freilich JF (1986) Contact behavior of the whirligig beetle Dineutes assimilis (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). Entomol News 97:215–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliam JF, Fraser DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard: test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68:1856–1862

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin J-GJ (1986) Risk of predation and foraging behaviour in shoaling banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus). Can J Zool 64:1675–1678

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey MC, Prieston R (1973) The interrelationships among individuals in a fish school. Fish Res Board Canada Tech Rep 389

  • Heinrich B, Vogt D (1980) Aggregation and foraging behavior for whirligig beetles (Gyrinidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:179–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings T, Evans SM (1980) Influence of position in the flock and flock size on vigilance in the starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Anim Behav 28:634–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys GC, Dugatkin LA (1990) Flock size and position effects on vigilance, aggression, and prey capture in the European starling. Condor 92:151–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause J (1993) The relationship between foraging and shoal position in a mixed shoal of roach (Rutilus rutilus) and chub (Leuciscus cephalus): a field study. Oecologia 93:356–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause J (1994) Differential fitness returns in relation to spatial position in groups. Biol Rev 69:187–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Bumann D, Todt D (1992) Relationship between the position preference and nutritional state of individuals in schools of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:177–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland WN, Moss SA (1967) Internal behavior in fish schools. Science 156:260–262

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston AI (1990a) State-dependent ideal free distributions. Evol Ecol 4:298–311

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara JM, Houston Al (1990b) The value of fat reserves and the tradeoff between starvation and predation. Acta Biotheor 38:37–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt RW (1978) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Parker GA (1991) Competition for resources. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach, 3rd edition. Blackwell, Boston, pp 137–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuernberger BD (1991) Population structure of Dineutes assimilis in a patchy environment: dispersal, gene flow, and persistence. PhD Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Parish JK (1989) Re-examining the selfish herd: are central fish safer? Anim Behav 38:1048–1053

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit DR, Bildstein KL (1987) Effect of group size and location within the group on the foraging behavior of white ibises. Condor 89:602–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ, Parish JK (1993) Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 363–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ, Wyche CJ, Magurran AE (1982) Evidence for position preferences in schooling mackerel. Anim Behav 30: 932–934

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, an evolutionary approach. Sinauer, Sunderland pp 122–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1990) Trade-offs in foraging success and predation risk with spatial position in colonial spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:77–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayor LS, Uetz GW (1993) Ontogenetic shifts within the selfish herd: predation risk and foraging trade-offs change with age in colonial web-building spiders. Oecologia 95:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Romey WL (1993) Grouping in whirligig beetles. PhD Thesis, State University of New York, Binghamton

    Google Scholar 

  • Romey WL (1995) Why are some animals more likely to be on the outside of a school? testing evolutionary predictions. In: Parish JK, Hamner WM, Prewitt CT (eds) Three dimensional animal aggregations. Cambridge University Press NY (in press)

  • Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1042

    Google Scholar 

  • Theodorakis CW (1989) Size segregation and the effects of oddity on predation risk in minnow schools. Anim Behav 38: 496–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Vulinec K, Miller MC (1989) Aggregation and predator avoidance in whirligig beetles (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae). J NY Entomol Soc 97:438–447

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Communicated by M.A. Elgar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romey, W.L. Position preferences within groups: do whirligigs select positions which balance feeding opportunities with predator avoidance?. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37, 195–200 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00176717

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00176717

Key words

Navigation