Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:47:09.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complex social ecology needs complex machineries of foraging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2019

Toshiya Matsushima ,
Hidetoshi Amita  and
Yukiko Ogura
Toshiya Matsushima
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan. [email protected]://www.sci.hokudai.ac.jp/~matusima/chinou3/Matsushima_english.html
Hidetoshi Amita
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-2510. [email protected]
Yukiko Ogura
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Uncertainty is caused not only by environmental changes, but also by social interference resulting from competition over food resources. Actually, foraging effort is socially facilitated, which, however, does not require incentive control by the dopamine system; Zajonc's “drive” theory is thus questionable. Instead, social adjustments may be pre-embedded in the limbic network responsible for decisions of appropriate effort-cost investment.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e45
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amita, H., Kawamori, A. & Matsushima, T. (2010) Social influences of competition on impulsive choices in domestic chicks. Biology Letters 6:183–86. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0748.Google Scholar
Aoki, N., Csillag, A. & Matsushima, T. (2006) Localized lesions of arcopallium intermedium of the lateral forebrain caused a handling-cost aversion in the domestic chick performing a binary choice task. European Journal of Neuroscience 24:2314–26. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05090.x.Google Scholar
Blanchard, T. C. & Hayden, B. Y. (2015) Monkeys are more patient in a foraging task than in a standard intertemporal choice task. PLoS One 10:e0117057. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117057.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. (1976a) Optimal foraging: Attack strategy of a mantid. American Naturalists 110:141–51. doi:10.1086/283054.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. (1976b) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9:129–36. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-X.Google Scholar
Clayton, D. A. (1978) Socially facilitated behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology 53:373–92.Google Scholar
Giraldeau, L.-A. & Caraco, T. (2000) Social foraging theory. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P.W. (2003) Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. Y., Pearson, J. M. & Platt, M. L. (2011) Neuronal basis of sequential foraging decisions in a patchy environment. Nature Neuroscience 14:933–39. doi: 10.1038/nn.2856.Google Scholar
Hull, C. (1943) Principles of behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Matsunami, S., Ogura, Y., Amita, H., Izumi, T., Yoshioka, M. & Matsushima, T. (2012) Behavioural and pharmacological effects of fluvoxamine on decision-making in food patches and the inter-temporal choices of domestic chicks. Behavioural Brain Research 233:577–86. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.05.045.Google Scholar
Ogura, Y., Amita, H. & Matsushima, T. (2018) Ecological bases of impulsive choice: Consequences of profitability-based short-sighted evaluation in the producer-scrounger game. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 4:49. doi: 10.3389/fams.2018.00049.Google Scholar
Ogura, Y., Izumi, T., Yoshioka, M. & Matsushima, T. (2015) Dissociation of the neural substrates of foraging effort and its social facilitation in the domestic chick. Behavioural Brain Research 294:162–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.07.052.Google Scholar
Ogura, Y. & Matsushima, T. (2011) Social facilitation revisited: Increase in foraging efforts and synchronization of running in domestic chicks. Frontiers in Neuroscience 5:91. 10.3389/fnins.2011.00091.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.E., Youngren, O.M., & Peek, F.W. (1972) Repetitive vocalizations evoked by local electrical stimulation of avian brains: I. Awake chickens (Gallus gallus). Animal Behaviour 20:689–705.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. W. & Krebs, J. R. (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wild, J. M., Arends, J. J. A. & Zeigler, H. P. (1985) Telencephalic connections of the trigeminal system in the pigeon (Columba livia): A trigeminal sensorimotor circuit. Journal of Comparative Neurology 234:441–64. doi:10.1002/cne.902340404.Google Scholar
Xin, Q., Ogura, Y. & Matsushima, T. (2017a) Four eyes match better than two: Sharing of precise patch-use time among socially foraging domestic chicks. Behavioural Processes 140:127–32. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2017.04.020.Google Scholar
Xin, Q., Ogura, Y., Uno, L. & Matsushima, T. (2017b) Selective contribution of the telencephalic arcopallium to the social facilitation of foraging efforts in the domestic chicks. European Journal of Neuroscience, 45:365–80. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13475.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149:269–74.Google Scholar