Diet preferences as the cause of individual differences rather than the consequence

Behavioural variation within a species is usually explained as the consequence of individual variation in physiology. However, new evidence suggests that the arrow of causality may well be in the reverse direction: behaviours such as diet preferences cause the differences in physiological and morphological traits. Recently, diet preferences were proposed to underlie consistent differences in digestive organ mass and movement patterns (patch residence times) in red knots (Calidris canutus islandica). Red knots are molluscivorous and migrant shorebirds for which the size of the muscular stomach (gizzard) is critical for the food processing rate. In this study, red knots (C. c. canutus, n = 46) were caught at Banc d'Arguin, an intertidal flat ecosystem in Mauritania, and released with radio-tags after the measurement of gizzard mass. Using a novel tracking system (time-of-arrival), patch residence times were measured over a period of three weeks. Whether or not gizzard mass determined patch residence times was tested experimentally by offering 12 of the 46 tagged red knots soft diets prior to release; this reduced an individual's gizzard mass by 20–60%. To validate whether the observed range of patch residence times would be expected from individual diet preferences, we simulated patch residence times as a function of diet preferences via a simple departure rule. Consistent with previous empirical studies, patch residence times in the field were positively correlated with gizzard mass. The slope of this correlation, as well as the observed range of patch residence times, was in accordance with the simulated values. The 12 birds with reduced gizzard masses did not decrease patch residence times in response to the reduction in gizzard mass. These findings suggest that diet preferences can indeed cause the observed among-individual variation in gizzard mass and patch residence times. We discuss how early diet experiences can have cascading effects on the individual expression of both behavioural and physiomorphic traits. This emphasizes that to understand the ecological consequences of individual differences, knowledge of the environment during development is required

Understanding spatial distributions: negative density-dependence in prey causes predators to trade-off prey quantity with quality

Negative density-dependence is generally studied within a single trophic level, thereby neglecting its effect on higher trophic levels. The ‘functional response’ couples a predator's intake rate to prey density. Most widespread is a type II functional response, where intake rate increases asymptotically with prey density; this predicts the highest predator densities at the highest prey densities. In one of the most stringent tests of this generality to date, we measured density and quality of bivalve prey (edible cockles Cerastoderma edule) across 50 km² of mudflat, and simultaneously, with a novel time-of-arrival methodology, tracked their avian predators (red knots Calidris canutus). Because of negative density-dependence in the individual quality of cockles, the predicted energy intake rates of red knots declined at high prey densities (a type IV, rather than a type II functional response). Resource-selection modelling revealed that red knots indeed selected areas of intermediate cockle densities where energy intake rates were maximized given their phenotype-specific digestive constraints (as indicated by gizzard mass). Because negative density-dependence is common, we question the current consensus and suggest that predators commonly maximize their energy intake rates at intermediate prey densities. Prey density alone may thus poorly predict intake rates, carrying capacity and spatial distributions of predators

Supplement to physical exchanges at the air-sea interface: UK-SOLAS Field Measurements

Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2009. This article is posted here by permission of American Meteorological Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90 (2009): ES9-ES16, doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2578.2