Showing off, Foraging Models, and the Ascendance of Large-Game Hunting in the California Middle Archaic

2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-789 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack M. Broughton ◽  
Frank E. Bayham
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Population Expansion ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
American Antiquity ◽  
Middle Holocene ◽  
Prey Model ◽  
Middle Archaic ◽  
Foraging Models ◽  
Game Hunting

In a recent paper in American Antiquity (2002:231-256), Hildebrandt and McGuire argue that archaeofaunal patterns in California document an ascendance of artiodactyl hunting during the Middle Archaic. They also suggest that such a trend is inconsistent with predictions derived from optimal-foraging models. Given the apparent failure of foraging theory, they advance a “showing off” model of large-game hunting. While their presentation is intriguing, we do not see a theoretical warrant for predicting that show-off hunting would have increased during the Middle Archaic. We present here an alternative hypothesis for the increase in artiodactyl abundances and the hunting-related patterns they identify. That hypothesis follows directly from the prey model itself under what appears to have been a dramatic artiodactyl population expansion after the drought-dominated middle Holocene period.

Optimal Foraging

Ecology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Stephens
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Ecology ◽  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
Resource Acquisition ◽  
Living Things ◽  
Foraging Models ◽  
Split Personality ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Evolutionary Fitness ◽  
Predator Behavior

All organisms face problems of resource acquisition, and in the broadest sense foraging theory is an attempt to make generalizations about the processes associated with resource acquisition. In theory, resource acquisition is a very general problem, but in practice foraging theory is closely linked to the study of animals and their behavior, since feeding—acquiring the tissue of living things to consume—is, after all, a defining property of animals. Optimal foraging models take an adaptationist perspective in the sense that they ask which strategy among a given “feasible” set will lead to the highest evolutionary fitness, and in making these calculations, students of foraging often use the mathematical tools of optimization. The first optimal foraging models appeared in the late 1960s and 1970s. Most of those that we now see as the “classic foraging models” date to this time. The subfield of foraging has a split personality. The early pioneers in the field (Charnov, Orians, MacArthur, Pianka, Parker) clearly saw themselves as ecologists, and they were motivated by the idea that an understanding of predator behavior would lead to a broader understanding of ecological phenomena such as the distribution and abundance of both prey and predators. Yet, modern foraging theory is more closely allied to behavioral ecology, which seeks to predict behavior in ecological contexts. Foraging theory has influenced disciplines far afield from ecology or even biology, including anthropology, economics, computer science, robotics, neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and marketing.

Optimal Foraging

2021 ◽  
pp. 79-88
Author(s):  
John P. DeLong
Keyword(s):  
Functional Response ◽  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Optimal Foraging Theory ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
Functional Responses ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Prey Model

This chapter is a refresher on the prey model of classic optimal foraging theory through the lens of this book. I build on the multi-species functional response, the selection ideas, and the parameter breakdown presented in the preceding chapters to argue for how optimal foraging might arise. I rederive the models and suggest that optimal foraging theory may still be relevant to understanding predator–prey interactions, in particular in the context of multi-species functional responses. I also address the possibility that predators mostly have broad diets because they experience low prey abundances most of the time in nature.

Are great tits (Parus major) really optimal foragers?

2003 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 780-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Berec ◽  
Vlastimil Krivan ◽  
Ludek Berec
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Parus Major ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Prey Type ◽  
Optimal Foraging Theory ◽  
Conveyor Belt ◽  
Critical Value ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
Functional Responses ◽  
Prey Model

In this study, we test the classical prey model of optimal-foraging theory with great tits (Parus major) feeding on two types of mealworms presented on a conveyor belt. Contrary to the results of some previous experiments, prey types were given to birds in random order, therefore birds could not predict their next prey item. We tested birds' diet choices at four different prey-encounter rates. Our results show that in 95% of cases great tits consumed the more profitable prey type upon encounter. On the other hand, consumption of the less profitable prey type did not differ statistically from the "always-attack" strategy in 77% of cases when the rate of encounter with the more profitable prey was below a critical value, and did differ from that strategy in 67% of cases when the rate of encounter with the more profitable prey was above that critical value. Contrary to predictions of the classical prey model of optimal-foraging theory, our birds never completely excluded the less profitable prey type from their diet. We also estimated the functional responses of individual birds with respect to the more profitable prey type; birds' diet changes occurred too slowly to make these functional responses stabilizing.

Back to Study Hall: Further Reflections on Large Game Hunting During the Middle Holocene in the Great Basin

2010 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 962-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Hockett
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Late Holocene ◽  
American Antiquity ◽  
Radiocarbon Dates ◽  
Middle Holocene ◽  
Small Game ◽  
Faunal Assemblages ◽  
Study Hall ◽  
Game Hunting

Hall's (this issue) comment to my paper published in American Antiquity five years ago (Hockett 2005) makes the following statements: (1) I calculated "depositional rates" for a series of Great Basin faunal assemblages; (2) my analysis did not account for atmospheric radiocarbon fluctuations; and (3) my paper argued "against an increase in hunting artiodactyls from the Middle to Late Holocene." He further argues that recalculation of the data I presented demonstrates that both large-and small-game hunting increased from the Middle to the Late Holocene. Hall is wrong on all accounts. I agree, however, that calibrated dates should now be used instead of the raw radiocarbon dates I used in my original paper. Using calibrated dates, however, does nothing to change the initial patterns I outlined five years ago. Three more recent papers (Hockett 2007, 2009; Hockett and Murphy 2009) on large game hunting in the Great Basin also corroborate my 2005 interpretations.

Middle and Late Holocene Hunting in the Great Basin: A Critical Review of the Debate and Future Prospects

2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 713-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Hockett
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Late Holocene ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
American Antiquity ◽  
Middle Holocene ◽  
Small Game ◽  
Hunting And Gathering ◽  
Communal Hunting ◽  
Game Hunting ◽  
Middle And Late Holocene

Recent papers published in American Antiquity and elsewhere have debated whether there were more artiodactyls available to human foragers during the relatively cool and moist Late Holocene compared to the relatively warm and dry Middle Holocene in the Great Basin. If so, how did human foragers respond to changes in artiodactyl abundance, and what explanations may be offered to account for any changes in human behavior across the Middle Holocene-Late Holocene boundary? A critical examination of the data used in this debate does not support the interpretation that human foragers across the Great Basin intensified artiodactyl hunting during the Late Holocene relative to Middle Holocene levels. Depending on location and setting, individual sites occupied during the Middle Holocene may show decidedly more intensive artiodactyl hunting at this time. At other sites, artiodactyl hunting remained consistent throughout the Middle and Late Holocene, while small game hunting and gathering significantly varied. New data presented below suggest that a change from encounter or ambush hunting involving small family groups to the communal hunting of pronghorn by larger numbers of people occurred near the Middle Holocene-Late Holocene boundary. I suggest that changes in social organization and technology also occurred at this time.

Faunal Quantification and the Ascendance of Hunting Debate: Reevaluation of the Data from Southeastern California

2015 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob L. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Support ◽  
Optimal Foraging Theory ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Faunal Assemblage ◽  
American Antiquity ◽  
White Mountains ◽  
Middle Archaic ◽  
Original Argument ◽  
Game Hunting ◽  
Faunal Exploitation

The debate regarding the underlying motivations for large game hunting in western North America has ensued in American Antiquity for over a decade. Empirical support for the original argument for costly signaling hunting by Hildebrandt and McGuire partly derived from a regional synthesis of faunal data from southeastern California that demonstrated a spike in artiodactyl hunting during the Middle Archaic. This spike is primarily driven by the faunal assemblage from a single, highelevation site located in the White Mountains of southeastern California. It was suspected that this anomaly was a reflection of analytical differences in taxonomic identifications among faunal analysts. Contrary to expectations, it was discovered that taxonomic identifications were conservative. Instead, the previously reported number of identified specimens for artiodactyls was calculated in a manner inconsistent with other analyses in the region. When corrected, the regional data show a pattern of faunal exploitation that is consistent with expectations derived from optimal foraging theory.

Prey Body Size and Ranking in Zooarchaeology: Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Applications from the Northern Great Basin

2011 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack M. Broughton ◽  
Michael D. Cannon ◽  
Frank E. Bayham ◽  
David A. Byers
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Great Basin ◽  
Diet Breadth ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
Return Rate ◽  
The Body ◽  
Foraging Efficiency ◽  
Large Prey ◽  
Abundance Indices ◽  
Game Hunting

The use of body size as an index of prey rank in zooarchaeology has fostered a widely applied approach to understanding variability in foraging efficiency. This approach has, however, been critiqued—most recently by the suggestion that large prey have high probabilities of failed pursuits. Here, we clarify the logic and history of using body size as a measure of prey rank and summarize empirical data on the body size-return rate relationship. With few exceptions, these data document strong positive relationships between prey size and return rate. We then illustrate, with studies from the Great Basin, the utility of body size-based abundance indices (e.g., the Artiodactyl Index) when used as one component of multidimensional analyses of prehistoric diet breadth. We use foraging theory to derive predictions about Holocene variability in diet breadth and test those predictions using the Artiodactyl Index and over a dozen other archaeological indices. The results indicate close fits between the predictions and the data and thus support the use of body size-based abundance indices as measures of foraging efficiency. These conclusions have implications for reconstructions of Holocene trends in large game hunting in western North America and for zooarchaeological applications of foraging theory in general.

Optimal foraging: theory and experiment

Nature ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 268 (5621) ◽  
pp. 583-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Krebs
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Optimal Foraging Theory ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
Theory And Experiment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document