No abstract

No abstract

Animals foraging in a heterogeneous environment may combine prior information on patch qualities and patch sample information to maximize intake rate. Prior information dictates the long‐term expectations, whereas prior information in combination with patch sample information determines when to leave an individual food patch. We examined patch use behaviour of benthic feeding fish in their natural environment at different spatial scales to test if they could determine patch quality and if patch use behaviour was correlated with environmental quality. In seven lakes along a gradient of environmental quality (measured as maximum benthivore size), we made repeated measurements of giving‐up density (GUD) in artificial food patches of different qualities. At the largest spatial scale, between lakes, we tested if giving‐up densities revealed the long‐term growth expectation of benthic fish. At the local scale of patches and micro patches we tested for the ability of benthic fish to assess patch quality, and how this ability depended on the patch exploitation levels between the different lakes. We found that GUD was positively related to maximum size of bream, suggesting that short‐term behavioural decisions reflected long‐term growth expectations. Benthic fish discriminated between nearby rich and poor patches, but not between rich and poor micropatches within a food patch. This suggests that the foraging scale of benthic fish lies between the patch and micro patch scale in our experiments. We conclude that patch use behaviour of benthic fish can provide a powerful measure of habitat quality that reveals how benthic fish perceive their environment.

1. We experimentally tested if a multiplicative risk model accurately predicted the consumption of a common mayfly at risk of predation from three predator species in New Zealand streams. Deviations between model predictions and experimental observations were interpreted as indicators of ecologically important interactions between predators. 2. The predators included a drift-feeding fish [brown trout (T), Salmo trutta], a benthivorous fish [galaxiid (G), koaro, Galaxias brevipennis] and a benthic predatory stonefly (S; Stenoperla sp.) with Deleatidium sp. mayflies as prey. Eight treatments with all predator species combinations and a predator-free control were used. Experiments were performed in aquaria with cobbles as predator refuges for mayflies and we measured the proportion of prey consumed after 6 h for both day and night trials. 3. Trout consumed a higher proportion of prey than other predators. For the two predator treatments we found less than expected prey consumption in the galaxiid + trout treatment (G + T) for both day and night trials, whereas a higher than expected proportion of prey was consumed during night time in the stonefly + trout (S + T) treatment. 4. The results indicate interference (G + T) and facilitation (S + T) between predators depending on predator identity and time of day. Thus, to make accurate predictions of interspecific interactions, it is necessary to consider the ecology of individual species and how differences influence the direction and magnitude of interactions.

Optimality theory rests on the assumptions that short-term foraging decisions are driven by variation in environmental quality, and that these decisions have important implications for long-term fitness. These assumptions, however, are rarely tested in a field setting. We linked behavioral foraging decisions in food patches with measures of environmental quality covering larger spatial (resource density) or temporal (growth parameters) scales. In 10 lakes, we measured the food density at which benthic fish give up foraging in experimental food patches (giving-up density, GUD), quantified the biomass of benthic invertebrates, and calculated the maximum individual size (L ') of bream (Abramis brama L.), a typical benthivore in these lakes. We found positive relationships between resource density and both GUD and L ' , and a positive relationship between L ' and GUD. Prey characterized as vulnerable to predation contributed most to the relationships between resource density and either GUD or L '. A path analysis showed that resource density and L ' directly explained 54% and 28%, respectively, of the variation in GUD, whereas 86% of the variation in L ' was explained by resource density, with mostly indirect contribution from GUD. We conclude that the short-term foraging behavior of benthivores matched our expectations based on optimality theory by being positively linked to variables on environmental quality operating at both a larger spatial scale and a longer temporal scale.