The Behavioral Ecology of Shellfish Gathering in Western Kiribati, Micronesia. 2: Patch Choice, Patch Sampling, and Risk

Abstract

The prey choice model, previously applied among shellfish gatherers in Kiribati, Micronesia, has shown that they are foraging in a manner that matches the predictions of optimal foraging theory by maximizing their net energy return rates. Similar conclusions can be drawn subsequent to testing the patch choice model, including patch switching; patch sampling; and the analysis of risk. In light of these results, it is argued that natural selection probably never encouraged the persistence of conservation because individuals have nearly always benefited from short-term goals to ensure greater fitness. However, the possibility remains that as a result of changed circumstances brought about by increasing human population, more efficient extractive technologies, and expanding market opportunities, genuine, as opposed to epiphenomenal conservation, may become established in heavily impacted environments.

Marginalization of the Margins: The Importance of Smaller Islands in Human Prehistory

“…In the Pacific, some of the gaps in our knowledge of small island colonization and adaptations have been filled by work on atolls or small limestone islands in Micronesia, including the Marshall Islands (e.g., Weisler 2001aWeisler , 2001bWeisler , 2002Weisler et al 2012;Yamaguchi et al 2009), Mwoakilloa (Poteate et al 2016), Fais (Intoh 2008;Intoh and Shigehara 2004), Kiribati (e.g., Thomas 2007aThomas , 2007bThomas , 2009Thomas , 2014, and Palau (e.g., Clark 2005;Clark et al 2006;Fitzpatrick 2003;Fitzpatrick et al 2011). There are also many other similar ones in Polynesia such as the Cook Islands (e.g., Allen and Craig 2009; Allen and Steadman 1990; Allen and Wallace 2007; Kirch et al 1995), the Tuamotu archipelago (e.g., Conte and Dennison 1995), the remote islands of Henderson, Pitcairn (Weisler 1995), and Rapa Nui (e.g., Hunt and Lipo 2011), and even the Arawe Islands of Papua New Guinea (Specht et al 2016), all of which have enhanced our understanding of small island adaptations.…”

Foraging behaviour of Brazilian riverine and coastal fishers: How much is explained by the optimal foraging theory?

“…Only by the end of the 1990s was there a resurgence of optimal foraging in anthropology and archaeology (Zeanah 2002;Lyman 2003;Lupo & Schmitt 2005), and for the fi rst time fi shers and shellfi sh gatherers came to be the focus of such studies (Begossi 1992;Bird & Bliege Bird 1997;Aswani 1998;de Boer et al 2002;Thomas 2007). Until then, hunters and gatherers were the only ones to be considered in human ecological studies, apparently because such human groups represented the last 'real foragers'.…”

“…With these recent studies, it has become clear that the study of fi shers and shellfi sh gatherers could also bring insights to the understanding of the evolution of human behaviour (Bird & O'Connell 2006;Nordi et al 2009), of archaeological facts, such as the formation of shell assemblages (Bird & Bliege Bird 1997;Thomas 2007), and it could even help establish management measures or understand local tenure systems (Aswani 1998). These more recent applications of optimal foraging models also show that new and more elaborated models are not necessarily required to understand 'current foragers', whose concerns are not only to eat and bring provisions to their families, but also to sell their foraging product (e.g., fi sh) to buy other goods and foodstuff (Begossi & Richerson 1992).…”

“…The analyses made in this and in other studies (Aswani 1998;Thomas 2007;Glover 2009) were performed at the population level, therefore not addressing individual behavioural variation.…”

Crab gatherers perceive concrete changes in the life history traits of Ucides cordatus (Linnaeus, 1763), but overestimate their past and current catches

“…Moreover, it also aimed to analyze the perception and accuracy of the information given by the community of crab gatherers in relation to the same variables assessed in the stock, as a way of seeking for an alternative tool to collect data related to species stock in the absence of systematic monitoring of the extraction (Thomas 2007). It was expected a decrease in the catch due to increasing fishing pressure, which, in its turn, was expected to be also realized by the crab gatherers.…”