IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i3p418-425..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nest material preferences in wild hazel dormice Muscardinus avellanarius: testing predictions from optimal foraging theory

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah A Collins
  • Sarah M Lane
  • Minako Ishibashi
  • Tracey Hamston

Abstract

Obtaining nesting material presents an optimal foraging problem, collection of materials incurs a cost in terms of risk of predation and energy spent and individuals must balance these costs with the benefits of using that material in the nest. The hazel dormouse, Muscardinus avellanarius is an endangered British mammal in which both sexes build nests. However, whether material used in their construction follows the predictions of optimal foraging theory is unknown. Here, we analyze the use of nesting materials in forty two breeding nests from six locations in Southwest England. Nests were characterized in terms of which plants were used, the relative amount of each plant, and how far away the nearest source was. We found that dormice exhibit a preference for plants closer to the nest, but that the distance they are prepared to travel depends on the plant species. Dormice traveled further to collect honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum, oak Quercus robur, and beech Fagus sylvatica than any other plants. Distance did not affect the relative amount used, although the proportion of honeysuckle in nests was highest, and more effort was expended collecting honeysuckle, beech, bramble Rubus fruticosus and oak compared to other plants. Our results suggest that not all aspects of optimal foraging theory apply to nest material collection. However, optimal foraging theory is a useful model to examine nest material collection, providing testable predictions. As found previously honeysuckle is important as a nesting material and its presence should be taken account when assessing suitability of sites for dormice.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah A Collins & Sarah M Lane & Minako Ishibashi & Tracey Hamston, 2023. "Nest material preferences in wild hazel dormice Muscardinus avellanarius: testing predictions from optimal foraging theory," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(3), pages 418-425.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:3:p:418-425.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arad016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    2. Mullahy, John, 1986. "Specification and testing of some modified count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 341-365, December.
    3. Duan, Naihua, et al, 1983. "A Comparison of Alternative Models for the Demand for Medical Care," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-126, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Silva João M. C. Santos & Tenreyro Silvana & Windmeijer Frank, 2015. "Testing Competing Models for Non-negative Data with Many Zeros," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Ulf‐ G. Gerdtham, 1997. "Equity in Health Care Utilization: Further Tests Based on Hurdle Models and Swedish Micro Data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 303-319, May.
    3. Cantoni, Eva & Ronchetti, Elvezio, 2006. "A robust approach for skewed and heavy-tailed outcomes in the analysis of health care expenditures," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 198-213, March.
    4. John Mullahy, 1998. "Much Ado About Two: Reconsidering Retransformation and the Two-Part Model in Health Economics," NBER Technical Working Papers 0228, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Daniele Fabbri & Chiara Monfardini, 2003. "Public vs. Private Health Care Services Demand in Italy," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 62(1), pages 93-123, April.
    6. De Luca, Giuliana & Ponzo, Michela, 2009. "Primary care utilisation and workers’ opportunity costs. Evidence from Italy," MPRA Paper 24201, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Lyu, Seong Ok & Hwang, Jinsoo, 2015. "Are the days of tourist information centers gone? Effects of the ubiquitous information environment," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 54-63.
    8. Mullahy, John, 1998. "Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-281, June.
    9. De Luca, Giuliana & Ponzo, Michela, 2009. "Access to primary care and workers’ opportunity costs. Evidence from Italy," MPRA Paper 15479, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Donald S. Kenkel & Joseph V. Terza, 2001. "The effect of physician advice on alcohol consumption: count regression with an endogenous treatment effect," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 165-184.
    11. Papadopoulos, Georgios & Santos Silva, J.M.C., 2012. "Identification issues in some double-index models for non-negative data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 365-367.
    12. Valerie Albouy & Laurent Davezies & Thierry Debrand, 2009. "Dynamic Estimation of Health Expenditure: A new approach for simulating individual expenditure," Working Papers DT20, IRDES institut for research and information in health economics, revised Jan 2009.
    13. JANSSENS, Jochen & DE CORTE, Annelies & SÖRENSEN, Kenneth, 2016. "Water distribution network design optimisation with respect to reliability," Working Papers 2016007, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    14. Yang Lu, 2019. "Flexible (panel) regression models for bivariate count–continuous data with an insurance application," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 182(4), pages 1503-1521, October.
    15. Raymond Hernandez & Elizabeth A. Pyatak & Cheryl L. P. Vigen & Haomiao Jin & Stefan Schneider & Donna Spruijt-Metz & Shawn C. Roll, 2021. "Understanding Worker Well-Being Relative to High-Workload and Recovery Activities across a Whole Day: Pilot Testing an Ecological Momentary Assessment Technique," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Christopher Hassall & Michael Nisbet & Evan Norcliffe & He Wang, 2024. "The Potential Health Benefits of Urban Tree Planting Suggested through Immersive Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, February.
    17. Boncinelli, Fabio & Bartolini, Fabio & Casini, Leonardo, 2018. "Structural factors of labour allocation for farm diversification activities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 204-212.
    18. Ed Westerhout & Kees Folmer, 2007. "Co-payment systems in health care; between moral hazard and risk reduction," CPB Discussion Paper 78.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    19. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Kan, Kamhon & Fu, Tsu-Tan, 1997. "Analysis of Housewives' Grocery Shopping Behavior in Taiwan: An Application of the Poisson Switching Regression," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 397-407, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:3:p:418-425.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.