China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
You Are What You Eat
Published in Emily Crews Splane, Neil E. Rowland, Anaya Mitra, Psychology of Eating, 2019
Emily Crews Splane, Neil E. Rowland, Anaya Mitra
Foraging behavior can be divided into two components: Appetitive and consummatory. Appetitive behaviors may be thought of as anticipatory because they bring us from a situation with no food into the immediate vicinity of food. A contemporary example might be going to the food store. In contrast, consummatory behaviors prepare or deliver food that is already nearby into our mouth and digestive system. A contemporary example might be microwaving a pre-made dish or meal. (For word freaks: Consummatory derives from consummate meaning complete, whereas when you eat food you are consuming it. If you clean your plate, have you consumed or consummated the meal?)
The Origins of Aging
Published in Shamim I. Ahmad, Aging: Exploring a Complex Phenomenon, 2017
The test subjects for the study by Slagsvold and Wiebe (2011) were two species of passerine birds; blue tits and great tits. The foraging behavior of these two species differs in that blue tits forage high in trees on twigs and buds whereas great tits feed mainly on the ground. In an early study, the investigators found that nestlings raised by parents of the other species (blue tit by great tit and vice versa), that is, cross-fostered birds, adopted the foraging behavior of the foster species and this shift in learned behavior of nestlings lasted for life (Slagsvold and Wiebe 2007). Hence, foraging behavior was shaped through a process of social learning between young birds and parents and the type of foraging behavior adopted was strongly influenced by the species of the parents. The investigators then questioned whether birds raised by a different species (cross-fostered) and which had learned foraging behavior from their foster parents would differ in the prey items they delivered to their nestlings compared to birds reared by their own species (Slagsvold and Weibe 2011). In the wild, great tits provide a larger prey volume (larvae, spiders, and flies) than blue tits and the cross-fostering experiment gave the expected results. Cross-fostered great tits provided smaller prey volumes than controls and cross-fostered blue tits provided larger volumes than controls.
Addiction and Moral Psychology
Published in Hanna Pickard, Serge H. Ahmed, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy and Science of Addiction, 2019
Chandra Sripada, Peter Railton
Such a move is only natural, given the connection between one’s motivational system and one’s identity. Imagine stripping the description of the “unwilling addict” of all affective or evaluative content. He might say, “When drug cravings occur, I really want to resist them. It isn’t that I care more about having a life with family, friends, and a career, or see such a life as more worthwhile or attractive. I just have this strong desire that my desires for these goals be effective, not my addictive desires.” This would be a surprisingly thin notion of identity—rather close, in fact, to the original characterization of the “wanton addict” who does not care which of his first-order desires win. If we are to explain the connection between motivation and identity, or to capture the distinctive kinds of motivational conflict found in addiction, we will need to incorporate into the motivational system affect, value, and representational content. Indeed, motivation in the absence of affect or value is rare: even taking interest in an outcome, or caring whether it happens, or hoping that it will, or being pleased when one makes progress toward it, are species of affect. The motivational system of intelligent animals appears to be designed, not as a battery of basic drives (such as the “salt appetite” when salt-deprived, Berridge 2004), but as an adaptive system that flexibly allocates effort in accord with expected value as represented by the animal. And such value—whether hedonic, nutritive, social, or informational—is encoded in the multidimensional affective system, which mediates the transitions from perception to thought and from thought to action (Behrens et al. 2007; Behrens et al. 2008; Grabenhorst et al. 2008; Barrett and Barr 2009; Lak et al. 2014). A foraging animal, for example, may find itself food-deprived and hungry in the early day, but still cache the food it gathers in anticipation of a time of greater future need. For such behavior to be possible, the brain must be capable of allocating effort in accord with an expectation of value or disvalue, not an occurrent motive force (Raby et al. 2007; Kolling et al. 2012). Indeed, the capacity of foraging animals to represent a wide array of values relevant to their well-being appears to be sufficiently sophisticated and information-sensitive that it can produce optimal foraging behavior in the face of the many trade-offs in a complex environment (in experimental simulations, humans can also exhibit optimal foraging, Behrens et al. 2007; Kolling et al. 2012).
Epibiotic bacteria on the carapace of hawksbill and green sea turtles
Published in Biofouling, 2023
Javad Loghmannia, Ali Nasrolahi, Sergey Dobretsov
Differences in epibiotic species composition associated with different co-occurring sea turtle species have been reported (Lazo-Wasem et al. 2011; Robinson et al. 2017; Boyd et al. 2021). These differences can be attributed to differences in foraging behavior, habitats, carapace microtexture, nesting activity, frequency of scute shedding, and age of sea turtles (Frick et al. 2013; Domènech et al. 2015; Loghmannia et al. 2021). As green turtles feed on algae, they often spend a lot of time in algal beds, which increases the epibiosis of the carapace with algae. In such a case, the algal epibionts may provide a new habitat for some bacteria that are unable to attach to sea turtles (McKnight et al. 2020). Another reason for the differences in bacterial composition between the two species of sea turtles could be the different collection techniques (nesting versus entangled animals) used in this study. Thus, further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Identification of disease genes and assessment of eye-related diseases caused by disease genes using JMFC and GDLNN
Published in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2022
Samar Jyoti Saikia, S. R. Nirmala
Foraging behavior: Consider th hen would forage (search) for food by just going after the other chickens. The bigger the difference between the ‘2’ chickens’ FVs, the smaller will be th hen searches its food in its own territory. For the specified group ‘1’, the rooster's FV is unique. Hence, the lesser the ith hen’s FV, the nearer th hen and the roosters (its group-mate). Therefore, the more dominant hens get more food to eat than the more submissive ones. The chicks go after their mother to forage for their food. And it is evaluated as, th chick’s mother
The Drosophila melanogaster foraging gene affects social networks
Published in Journal of Neurogenetics, 2021
Nawar Alwash, Aaron M. Allen, Marla B. Sokolowski, Joel D. Levine
Adult rover-sitter heterozygotes are known to exhibit intermediate behavioral phenotypes to rover and sitter [e.g. adult foraging behavior (Pereira & Sokolowski, 1993); sucrose consumption in a foraging arena (Anreiter et al., 2017)]. A pattern of intermediate dominance was also found for most of the behavioral elements and social network measures that exhibited rover-sitter differences (see Figure 2). Interestingly, there appeared to be a larger spread in the sitter compared to the rover and rover-sitter heterozygotes for some of the measures suggesting that sitter group measures may be more plastic in response to the environment. Differences in behavioral plasticity have been reported for behavioral and physiological phenotypes influences by for (reviewed in (Anreiter & Sokolowski, 2019)).