Reconciling variability and optimal behaviour using multiple criteria in optimization models

A major objective in behavioural and evolutionary ecology is to understand how animals make decisions in complex environments. Examinations of animal behaviour typically use optimization models to predict the choices animals ought to make. The performance of animals under specific conditions is then compared against the predicted optimal strategy. This optimization approach has come into question because model predictions often do not match animal behaviour exactly. This has led to serious scepticism about the ability of animals to exhibit optimal behaviour in complex environments. We show that conventional approaches that compare observed animal behaviour with single optimal values may bias the way we view real-world variation in animal performance. Considerable insight into the abilities of animals to make optimal decisions can be gained by interpreting why variability in performance exists. We introduce a new theoretical framework, called multi-objective optimization, which allows us to examine decision-making in complex environments and interpret the meaning of variability in animal performance. A multi-objective approach defines the set of efficient choices animals may make in attempting to reach compromises among multiple conflicting demands. In a multi-objective framework, we may see variation in animal choices, but, unlike single-objective optimizations where there is one best solution, this variation may represent a range of adaptive compromises to conflicting objectives. An important feature of this approach is that, within the set of efficient alternatives, no choice can be considered to yield higher fitness, a priori, than any other choice. Thus, variability and optimal behaviour may be entirely consistent. We illustrate our point using selected examples from foraging theory where there is already an optimization program in place.     

Pre- and postdispersal seed predation by rodents: balance of food and safety

Seed presentation and availability for seed predators changeduring every plant reproductive cycle. We know very little abouthow those changes impinge on both the ability of seed predatorsto impact plant populations and the foraging costs associatedwith seed consumption. Therefore, we conducted several fieldexperiments to evaluate whether wood mice Apodemus sylvaticusbalance food and safety while foraging on Helleborus foetidusseeds during both the pre- and early postdispersal phases ofthe plant reproductive cycle. Both food and safety were keydeterminants of mouse foraging on H. foetidus seeds, thoughtheir roles were not consistent along the plant reproductivecycle. Thus, augmenting ambient food reduced fruit removal bymice during the predispersal phase. During the postdispersalphase, seeds in sheltered microsites experienced higher removalrates than those located in nonsheltered microsites; however,no effect of food augmentation was detected. This apparent reversedrole of food and safety on decision making by mice seemed closelylinked to both the dramatic changes in accessibility and presentationof H. foetidus seeds and the coupled changing foraging costsfaced by mice at different phases of the plant reproductivecycle. For instance, because the cost of foraging for predispersalseeds was higher than for postdispersal seeds, the effect offood augmentation on foraging by wood mice was greater duringthe predispersal phase. Thus, our study illustrates the needof considering differences between pre- and postdispersal seedpredation in the study of granivore rodents and their impacton plant populations.     

The benefits of stealing from a predator: foraging rates, predation risk, and intraspecific aggression in the kleptoparasitic spider Argyrodes antipodiana

In the trade-off between food and safety, the role of aggressiveintraspecific interactions has not been extensively examined.Here I present information on this system using a kleptoparasiticspider, Argyrodts antipodiana, and its host spider and potentialpredator, Eriophora pustulosa. A. antipodiana can feed eitherat a potentially dangerous site (the hub of its host's web withthe host), or at a relatively safe site (on food bundles aroundthe edge of the host's web). I found that A. antipodiana cangain food very quickly when feeding with the host, apparentlyby exploiting the host's ability to digest the prey. Thus A.antipodiana follows predictions based on foraging models inthat it accepts a higher predation risk at the hub because ofthe higher food payoff. A. antipodiana also aggressively competesfor access to more food. However, aggressive competition increasesthe predation risk from the host, especially at tile hub wherethe host is very close. Consequently, A. antipodiana modifiesits level of intraspecific aggressiveness in accordance withits position on the web: at the hub, where the cost of aggressionis high (due to predation risk), A. antipodiana reduces itsaggressiveness, but it is aggressive away from the hub whencompeting for food bundles. The ability of A. antipodiana tochange interaction intensity as a function of its position onthe web enables it to exploit a rich, but risky, food sourceand provides a new angle for examining food and safety tradeoffs in light of intraspecific competition for food