In a songbird species, defending a territory saved the bird 584 calories a day in reduced foraging activity, but cost the bird 656 calories in defense of the territory. Is defending the territory consistent with the prediction from optimal foraging theory, and what can explain this

Question

Hillary Mcclure

Biology

5 January, 01:06

In a songbird species, defending a territory saved the bird 584 calories a day in reduced foraging activity, but cost the bird 656 calories in defense of the territory. Is defending the territory consistent with the prediction from optimal foraging theory, and what can explain this

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Alana Beltran · Answer 1

The correct answer is "No, this is not consistent with the predictions on optimality".

Explanation:

The optimal foraging theory (OFT) establishes that an organism looks for the best foraging strategy, which involves maximizing the amount of energy that is available in its daily activities. In this case, the songbird species is not consistent with the predictions on optimality since it needs more calories than it intakes in order to defend its territory. In this scenario, the songbird will lose 72 calories per day.