Lm. Bautista et al., OPTIMAL FORAGING AND BEYOND - HOW STARLINGS COPE WITH CHANGES IN FOODAVAILABILITY, The American naturalist, 152(4), 1998, pp. 543-561
Foraging adaptations include behavioral and physiological responses, b
ut most optimal foraging models deal exclusively with behavioral decis
ion variables, taking other dimensions as constraints. To overcome thi
s limitation, we measured behavioral and physiological responses of Eu
ropean starlings Sturnus vulgaris to changes in food availability in a
laboratory environment. The birds lived in a dosed economy with a cho
ice of two foraging modes (flying and walking) and were observed under
two treatments (hard and easy) that differed in the work required to
obtain food. Comparing the hard with the easy treatment, we found the
following differences. In the hard treatment, daily amount of work was
higher, but daily intake was lower. Even though work was greater, tot
al daily expenditure was smaller, partly because overnight metabolism
was lower. Body mass was lower, but daily oscillation in body mass did
not differ. Feces' caloric density was lower; indicating greater food
utilization. Energy expenditure rate expressed as multiples of basal
metabolic rate (BMR) increased during the working period from 3.5 X BM
R (easy) to 5.2 X BMR (hard), but over the 24-h period, it was close t
o 2.4 X BMR in both treatments. We also found that rate of expenditure
during flight was very high in both treatments (52.3 W in easy and 45
.5 W in hard), as expected for short (as opposed to cruising) flights.
The relative preferences between walking and flying were incompatible
with maximizing the ratio of energy gains per unit of expenditure (ef
ficiency) but compatible with maximizing net gain per unit of time dur
ing the foraging cycle (net rate). Neither currency explained the resu
lts when nonforaging time was included. Time was not a direct constrai
nt: the birds rested more than 90% of the time in both treatments. Und
erstanding this complex picture requires reasoning with ecological, ph
ysiological, and cognitive arguments. We defend the role of optimality
as an appropriate tool to guide this integrative perspective.