4.5 Article

Both learning and heritability affect foraging behaviour of red-backed salamanders, Plethodon cinereus

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 721-732

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.06.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current theory suggests that most animal behaviours are the product of complex interactions between learning and inheritance. Optimal foraging theory predicts that animals should alter their foraging tactics depending on abundance and quality of available prey, and that at least some components of foraging behaviour must be heritable. Successful foraging behaviour, therefore, may require an individual to become an efficient predator on several novel prey types throughout its lifetime, and such aptitude may have a genetic basis. We examined foraging behaviour of the red-backed salamander to test two main hypotheses: (1) that salamanders at each of three age classes (neonates, yearlings and adults) would increase their foraging efficiency with increasing exposure to novel prey and (2) that various foraging parameters would have a genetic component. All age classes showed a significant increase in foraging efficiency after their first exposure to a novel prey type. Significant clutch differences and heritability estimates suggest that some aspects of foraging (e.g. prey recognition and latency to prey capture) may be influenced by genetics. Individuals that captured fewer prey items as neonates were less likely to survive to become yearlings under standardized laboratory conditions. This suggests that genetic variation in foraging efficiency may be directly related to future fitness (i.e. may influence mortality rates). This study indicates that learning, at all ages, plays an important role in successful foraging and that differences in foraging efficiency between individuals may have a genetic component. (c) 2005 The Association for the study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据