贮食动物的盗食与反盗食行为策略

食物贮藏是许多动物应对食物短缺、保障其生存和繁衍的一种适应性行为。保护好贮藏食物以供食物短缺期利用,是食物贮藏成功的标志和进化动力。同种或异种动物盗食是贮藏食物损失的重要原因。嗅觉、视觉与空间记忆、随机搜寻等是动物搜寻和盗取食物的重要手段;避免盗食、阻止盗食和容忍盗食是动物反盗食的重要策略。动物通常采用多种行为策略进行盗食和反盗食,分配食物资源,形成相对稳定的种内、种间关系。盗食与反盗食互作及其对贮食行为进化的意义已成为行为生态学的研究热点和前沿之一,针对鸟类和哺乳类动物的研究尤为丰富。本文总结了贮食动物常见的盗食和反盗食行为策略及其相互作用的研究进展,主要内容涉及贮食动物利用嗅觉、视觉与空间记忆、随机搜寻等盗取其他个体食物的盗食策略,以及通过隐藏、转移、保卫、容忍等方式减少被盗食,保护贮藏食物的行为策略。针对现有研究状况,从种间盗食与反盗食及其与物种共存的关系,种间非对称盗食关系及其适应意义,盗食与反盗食最适行为策略及其与贮食动物适合度的关系等方面对今后研究提出了建议。     

Conspecific pilferage but not presence affects Merriam's kangaroo rat cache strategy

We investigated the effects of pilferage on caching behaviorin the Merriam's kangaroo rat by manipulating two factors associatedwith pilferage: the presence of a conspecific, and the opportunityfor pilferage. In one experiment we assessed animals in either"Stealer" or "Victim" roles and measured changes in caching,space use, and behavior after caches were pilfered. Victimsshifted from a majority scatter-hoarding to a majority larder-hoardingstrategy after their caches were pilfered by the Stealer. InExperiment 2, we measured changes after exposure to a conspecificwhen there was no pilferage, with or without prior exposureto pilferage from Experiment 1. Merriam's kangaroo rats werevigilant when a conspecific was present, but did not changecache strategy. Prior exposure did not have any major effecton caching or behavior. Food storage is an economic decisionthat is often made by a solitary forager. Our results suggestthat social competition nonetheless influences such economic decisions, even in a nonsocial forager.     

Substrate type affects caching and pilferage of pine seeds by chipmunks

The abiotic environment often influences the ways in which animalsinteract. By affecting the cues associated with buried seeds,the type of substrate used by seed-caching rodents may alterthe relative probabilities of cache pilferage and cache retrieval.We predicted that, after a wildfire, the presence of ash wouldimpair rodents' ability to smell pine seeds on the forest floor.In a laboratory experiment, we compared the foraging success,caching frequency, and cache recovery of chipmunks (six Tamiasamoenus and six T. quadrimaculatus) in ash versus sand substrates.Initial results supported our hypothesis: chipmunks found only2.3% of 108 caches of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) seeds thatwe buried in ash but found 98% of caches in sand. However, chipmunksmade as many or more of their own caches in ash compared withsand (48% for T. amoenus, 73% for T. quadrimaculatus.) Whenforaging for seeds cached in ash by themselves and by otherindividuals, they found significantly higher proportions oftheir own caches (62%) than of caches made by others (25%).However, when foraging in sand, they found high proportionsboth of their own caches and those of others (86 versus 81%).These results suggest that olfaction is less effective in ashthan in sand, that spatial memory enables chipmunks to recovertheir own caches in ash, and that caching in ash may allow animalsto avoid pilferage of stored food. As chipmunks are importantdispersers of seeds, changes in their foraging patterns or competitiveinteractions after fire could significantly affect pine regeneration.     

Scatter‐hoarding and cache pilfering of rodents in response to seed abundance

Seed caching and reciprocal cache pilferage play an important role in the coexistence of food‐hoarding animals. Understanding what affects seed caching and how cache pilferage occurs is an important question in seed dispersal ecology. However, tracking seed fate and cache pilferage presents substantial practical difficulties. Siberian chipmunks Tamias sibiricus always remove the entire pericarp when scatter‐hoarding acorns of Mongolian oak Quercus mongolica, whereas wood mice Apodemus peninsulae often store whole acorns in their caches. These differences in behavior provide an opportunity to investigate unilateral cache pilferage of T. sibiricus from A. peninsulae in response to seed abundance. In this study, tagged acorns were released at the peak and end periods of seed rain from Q. mongolica. This allowed us to investigate seed caching and unilateral cache pilferage at different seed abundances. We found that a higher proportion of acorns were cached at lower level of seed abundance (toward the end of seed rain), mainly because T. sibiricus rather than A. peninsulae scatter‐hoarded significantly more acorns at this time. Cache distances decreased with increasing seed abundance, indicating that acorns were cached further away and into smaller caches at lower seed abundance. Unexpectedly, unilateral cache pilferage by T. sibiricus was not significantly influenced by seed abundance—remaining at around 28% during both periods of high and low seed abundance.     

A reevaluation of the logic of pilferage effects, predation risk, and environmental variability on avian energy regulation: the critical role of time budgets

We studied the effect of pilferage rates, variation in foodencounter rate, and predation risk on cache and fat-storageregulation using dynamic programming. Previous predictionsthat small birds facing increased pilferage rates should cacheless and store more body fat are not generally supported. Instead,cache investment (caching rate or percent of food cached) is predicted to be unimodal, peaking at intermediate pilferagerates. This pattern is determined, in part, by pilferage-inducedchanges in time budgets: at low pilferage rates, a marginalincrease in pilferage rates can be offset by an increase incache investment. However, increased caching increases time allocated to both caching and foraging. The increased foragingis caused by the energetic costs of caching and by the lossof energy from the cache. Increased time spent caching andforaging in turn decreases time spent resting under low predationrisk. Above some threshold pilferage rate, the marginal valueof resting exceeds the marginal value of caching, and cacheinvestment declines with further increasing pilferage rates.These patterns hold for three levels of variation in food encounterrate: time-invariant, between-day, and within-day variation;they also hold across different mean rates of food encounter.We show that previous predictions concerning decreased energy-storagelevels with increased food abundance are not supported when there is between-day variation in mean food encounter ratesand food abundance increases only on "good" days. Finally,predation risk affects the predictions described above in twoways. First, these trends assume that the birds can rest ina predator-free refuge. If the refuge is not available, birdsare predicted to cache less at higher pilferage rates irrespectiveof the absolute level of pilferage. With the refuge in place,levels of predation risk affect the skew in the pilferage-rate/cachingfunction. As a result, the relative effect of predation riskon caching intensity varies with pilfer rate. At very low pilferrates, lowered predation risk causes more caching, but loweredpredation risk under high pilferage rates can lower caching intensity, contrary to previous predictions. Surprisingly, predationrisk has an appreciable effect on body mass only when the birdis predicted to cease caching (i.e., at the highest pilferrates); otherwise a change of two orders of magnitude in theprobability of encountering predators has little effect on body mass. Our results suggest that the tradeoffs associatedwith the joint regulation of internal energy stores and externallycached stores are more complicated than previous literaturewould indicate. Our results also show that we have underestimatedthe role that time budgets play in patterns of energy regulation.