On the economics of sit-and-wait foraging: site selection and assessment

We present two models of optimal resource exploitation for sit-and-waitforagers. The first model assumes immediate recognition of sitequality and that site quality does not change over time. Thismodel predicts a forager's minimum acceptable site quality.We present a graphical analysis to show how (1) the distributionof site qualities, (2) the travel time between sites, (3) costof search, and (4) expected duration of the foraging processinfluence the minimum acceptable rate. Our second model allowssite qualities to change and relaxes the assumption of immediaterecognition. This model defines conditions of (1) state duration,(2) recognition time, (3) site abundance, and (4) cost of searchwhere the optimal policy is to stay put in a site regardlessof experience. We discuss the implications of these models forthe design and interpretation of field experiments of site useand habitat selection.     

Range expansion,habitat use,and choosiness in a butterfly under climate change: Marginality and tolerance of oviposition site selection

Poleward range shifts under climate change involve the colonization of new sites and hence the foundation of new populations at the expanding edge. We studied oviposition site selection in a butterfly under range expansion (Lycaena dispar), a key process for the establishment of new populations. We described and compared the microhabitats used by the species for egg laying with those available across the study sites both in edge and in core populations. We carried out an ecological niche factor analysis (ENFA) to estimate (1) the variety of microhabitats used by the butterfly for egg laying (tolerance) and (2) the extent to which these selected microhabitats deviated from those available (marginality). Microhabitat availability was similar in edge and core populations. Ambient temperature recorded at the site level above the vegetation was on average lower at core populations. In contrast with what is often assumed, edge populations did not have narrower microhabitat use compared to core populations. Females in edge populations even showed a higher degree of generalism: They laid eggs under a wider range of microhabitats. We suggest that this pattern could be related to an overrepresentation of fast deciding personalities in edge populations. We also showed that the thermal time window for active female behavior was reduced in edge populations, which could significantly decrease the time budget for oviposition and decrease the threshold of acceptance during microhabitat selection for oviposition in recently established populations.     

Sexual selection and extrapair fertilization in a socially monogamous passerine, the zebra finch (Taeniopygia gullata)

We investigated paternal exclusion rate (the percentage of youngreared by a male that were not his genetic offspring), and behavioraland reproductive variables influencing this rate, in a freelybreeding laboratory population of zebra finches (Tae-niopygiaguttala castanotis), a socially monogamous grassfinch. Priorto the experiment, each male founder was fitted with eithertwo red bands (creating a phenotype previously demonstratedto be attractive to females) or two green bands (unattractiveto females) as part of a unique combination of four leg bands.The overall paternal exclusion rate was 28%, as determined bymultilocus, minisatellite DNA fingerprinting of 278 offspringreared by 26 males and their mates. Mean exclusion rates were16% and 40% for red- and green-banded males, respectively. Exclusionrates were directly proportional to rates of female participationin unforced extrapair copulations (UEPCs) with red-banded malesthat occurred when females were fertile. Rates of fertile, forcedextrapair copulations (FEPCs) and fertile UEPCs involving green-bandedmales either failed to influence exclusion rate or varied inverselywith exclusion rate, indicating that extrapair fertilization(EPF) is under female control. Effort devoted by males to seekingEPFs increased exclusion rate. Results suggest that males placegreater effort into seeking fertile versus infertile EPCs andthat unattractive males accrue fitness gains through high parentalinvestment (PI), whereas attractive males benefit through decreasedPI and increased allocation to EPF.