Cassini M H, Kacelniks A
Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental, Obligado 2490, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
Behav Processes. 1994 Apr;31(2-3):145-56. doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(94)90002-7.
Using four Guinea pigs (Cavia aperea f. porcellus) as subjects we tested the predictions of three versions of a rate-maximizing model in a patch choice foraging task. Patches were of two types which differed in interval between captures and in number of prey within each patch. In the model, the optimal policy is expressed as the threshold difference in inter-prey interval between the two patch types beyond which it pays to reject poor patches. The model versions are: a) recognizer (capable of identifying patch type on encounter and patch exhaustion upon capturing the last prey); b) timer (must wait a time r before identifying a patch as being poor, but can identify patch exhaustion at the last capture); and c) dual timer (as timer but needs an additional waiting time to detect patch exhaustion). In the experiment we used patches containing only one prey item. The results showed that patches were accepted in close agreement with the predictions of the timer and dual-timer models, but only the assumptions of the second model were met, as guinea pigs took considerable time to identify poor patches and also some time to abandon exhausted patches. These results showed that although cues for patch type were present, the guinea pigs did not behave as recognizers. We discuss and advocate the use of realistically constrained optimal foraging models.
我们以四只豚鼠(豚鼠属)为实验对象,在斑块选择觅食任务中测试了速率最大化模型三个版本的预测结果。斑块有两种类型,捕获猎物的间隔时间和每个斑块内猎物数量不同。在模型中,最优策略表示为两种斑块类型之间猎物间隔的阈值差异,超过这个差异就应舍弃较差的斑块。模型版本如下:a)识别器(能够在遇到斑块时识别斑块类型,并在捕获最后一个猎物时识别斑块耗尽);b)定时器(在将一个斑块判定为较差之前必须等待时间r,但在最后一次捕获时能够识别斑块耗尽);c)双定时器(与定时器相同,但需要额外的等待时间来检测斑块耗尽)。在实验中,我们使用了仅包含一个猎物的斑块。结果表明,豚鼠接受斑块的情况与定时器和双定时器模型的预测非常吻合,但仅满足第二个模型的假设,因为豚鼠需要相当长的时间来识别较差的斑块,并且也需要一些时间来舍弃耗尽的斑块。这些结果表明,尽管存在斑块类型的线索,但豚鼠的行为并不像识别器。我们讨论并提倡使用实际受限的最优觅食模型。