Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 24;86(5):1257–1268. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12724

Figure 4.

Figure 4

The relationship between EE strategy and foraging trip matrices. (a) Individuals which favour exploitation have longer foraging trip durations (p < .001). N: [0, 50] (0), [50, 100] (11), [100, 150] (35), [150, 200] (28), [200, 250] (28), [250, 300] (31), [300, 350] (20), [350, 400] (15), [400, 450] (9), [450–840] (7), [500–840](13). (b) Individuals which favour exploitation travel further during trips (p < .001). N: [0,1000] (3), [1000, 2000] (21), [2000, 3000] (33), [3000, 4000] (24), [4000, 5000] (26), [5000, 6000] (19), [6000, 7000] (14), [7000, 8000] (15), [8000, 9000] (9), [9000, 10000] (12), [10000–17700] (21). (c) Individuals which favour exploitation have larger maximum ranges (p < .001). N: [0, 200] (6), [200, 400] (31), [400, 600] (17), [600, 800] (24), [800, 1000] (15), [1000, 1200] (16), [1200, 1400] (18), [1400, 1600] (17), [1600, 1800] (23), [1800, 2000] (8), [2000, 2200] (11), [2200–3940] (11). Foraging metrics are grouped for plotting purposes. Raw data are shown in Appendix 2 Figure S2 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]