Magnitude integration in the Archerfish.

We make magnitude-related decisions every day, for example, to choose the shortest queue at the grocery store. When making such decisions, which magnitudes do we consider? The dominant theory suggests that our focus is on numerical quantity, i.e., the number of items in a set. This theory leads to quantity-focused research suggesting that discriminating quantities is automatic, innate, and is the basis for mathematical abilities in humans. Another theory suggests, instead, that non-numerical magnitudes, such as the total area of the compared items, are usually what humans rely on, and numerical quantity is used only when required. Since wild animals must make quick magnitude-related decisions to eat, seek shelter, survive, and procreate, studying which magnitudes animals spontaneously use in magnitude-related decisions is a good way to study the relative primacy of numerical quantity versus non-numerical magnitudes. We asked whether, in an animal model, the influence of non-numerical magnitudes on performance in a spontaneous magnitude comparison task is modulated by the number of non-numerical magnitudes that positively correlate with numerical quantity. Our animal model was the Archerfish, a fish that, in the wild, hunts insects by shooting a jet of water at them. These fish were trained to shoot water at artificial targets presented on a computer screen above the water tank. We tested the Archerfish's performance in spontaneous, untrained two-choice magnitude decisions. We found that the fish tended to select the group containing larger non-numerical magnitudes and smaller quantities of dots. The fish selected the group containing more dots mostly when the quantity of the dots was positively correlated with all five different non-numerical magnitudes. The current study adds to the body of studies providing direct evidence that in some cases animals' magnitude-related decisions are more affected by non-numerical magnitudes than by numerical quantity, putting doubt on the claims that numerical quantity perception is the most basic building block of mathematical abilities.

To dare or not to dare? Risk management by owls in a predator-prey foraging game.

In a foraging game, predators must catch elusive prey while avoiding injury. Predators manage their hunting success with behavioral tools such as habitat selection, time allocation, and perhaps daring-the willingness to risk injury to increase hunting success. A predator's level of daring should be state dependent: the hungrier it is, the more it should be willing to risk injury to better capture prey. We ask, in a foraging game, will a hungry predator be more willing to risk injury while hunting? We performed an experiment in an outdoor vivarium in which barn owls (Tyto alba) were allowed to hunt Allenby's gerbils (Gerbillus andersoni allenbyi) from a choice of safe and risky patches. Owls were either well fed or hungry, representing the high and low state, respectively. We quantified the owls' patch use behavior. We predicted that hungry owls would be more daring and allocate more time to the risky patches. Owls preferred to hunt in the safe patches. This indicates that owls manage risk of injury by avoiding the risky patches. Hungry owls doubled their attacks on gerbils, but directed the added effort mostly toward the safe patch and the safer, open areas in the risky patch. Thus, owls dared by performing a risky action-the attack maneuver-more times, but only in the safest places-the open areas. We conclude that daring can be used to manage risk of injury and owls implement it strategically, in ways we did not foresee, to minimize risk of injury while maximizing hunting success.

Predator facilitation or interference: a game of vipers and owls.

In predator-prey foraging games, the prey's reaction to one type of predator may either facilitate or hinder the success of another predator. We ask, do different predator species affect each other's patch selection? If the predators facilitate each other, they should prefer to hunt in the same patch; if they interfere, they should prefer to hunt alone. We performed an experiment in a large outdoor vivarium where we presented barn owls (Tyto alba) with a choice of hunting greater Egyptian gerbils (Gerbillus pyramidum) in patches with or without Saharan horned vipers (Cerastes cerastes). Gerbils foraged on feeding trays set under bushes or in the open. We monitored owl location, activity, and hunting attempts, viper activity and ambush site location, and the foraging behavior of the gerbils in bush and open microhabitats. Owls directed more attacks towards patches with vipers, and vipers were more active in the presence of owls. Owls and vipers facilitated each other's hunting through their combined effect on gerbil behavior, especially on full moon nights when vipers are more active. Owls forced gerbils into the bushes where vipers preferred to ambush, while viper presence chased gerbils into the open where they were exposed to owls. Owls and vipers took advantage of their indirect positive effect on each other. In the foraging game context, they improve each other's patch quality and hunting success.

Driven to distraction: detecting the hidden costs of flea parasitism through foraging behaviour in gerbils.

Gerbilline rodents such as Allenby's gerbils (Gerbillus andersoni allenbyi), when parasitized by fleas such as Synosternus cleopatrae pyramidis, devote long hours of grooming to remove the ectoparasites. Yet no detrimental energetic or immunological effects of the ectoparasites have been found in adult Allenby's gerbil. Why should gerbils go to such trouble? We tested for the various ways that fleas can negatively affect gerbils by manipulating flea infestation on gerbils and the presence of a fox. We demonstrate that gerbils responded to fleas by leaving resource patches at higher giving-up densities. Furthermore, they stayed in those resource patches less time and left them at higher quitting harvest rates so long as a fox was also present. When flea-ridden, gerbils also abandoned using vigilance to manage risk and relied mainly on time allocation. Thus, having fleas imposed a foraging cost similar in nature to that arising from the risk of predation from foxes and may be even larger in magnitude. More than that, the presence of fleas acted as a magnifier of foraging costs, especially those arising from the risk of predation. The fleas reduced the gerbils' foraging aptitude and altered how they went about managing risk of predation. We hypothesize that fleas reduce the attention that gerbils otherwise have for foraging and predator detection. We suggest that this is the major cost of ectoparasitism.