Taking fear back into the Marginal Value Theorem: the risk-MVT and optimal boldness

Foragers exploiting heterogeneous habitats must make strategic movement decisions in order to maximize fitness. Foraging theory has produced very general formalizations of the optimal patch-leaving decisions rational individuals should make. One is Charnov’s Marginal Value Theorem (MVT), which models the sequential visit of habitat patches and their spatial distribution. The MVT has a simple intuitive graphical interpretation in terms of gain functions and travel times. However, it considers only energy gains, and the effect of predation risk on the time allocation strategy is notoriously lacking. An important development that includes predation risk was Brown’s economic treatment of optimal patch leaving decisions, the basis of giving-up density (GUD) theory, often cited as an extension of the MVT. However, it is a more abstract result that does not have the specificities or graphical appeal of the MVT. Although both successful, the two theories are cited by distinct communities and are seldom connected in texbooks. Here we formally introduce the risk-MVT (rMVT), a generalization of the MVT that can incorporate most types of predation risks. We show that Brown’s GUD-theory is equivalent to a rMVT, but applies for one type of predation risk only. The rMVT retains the structure and graphical simplicity of the MVT, but implies a shift from residence time to expected dose of risk (micromort units, as used in decision analysis) as the domain over which rates of gain are computed and maximized. Applications of the rMVT show that different types of risk can yield opposite responses of optimal strategies to an increase in the risk level, and predict differential responses of behaviours observed in experimental versus natural conditions. The risk-MVT can also be used to predict the optimal level of risk taking, or “optimal boldness”, and suggests that individuals should generally be bolder in riskier habitats.