{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025182239893969515, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.05607476635514, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Foraging decisions and behavioural flexibility in trap‐building predators: a review

Foraging theory was first developed to predict the behaviour of widely‐foraging animals that actively search for prey. Although the behaviour of sit‐and‐wait predators often follows predictions derived from foraging theory, the similarity between these two distinct groups of predators is not always obvious. In this review, we compare foraging activities of trap‐building predators (mainly pit‐building antlions and web‐building spiders), a specific group of sit‐and‐wait predators that construct traps as a foraging device, with those of widely‐foraging predators. We refer to modifications of the trap characteristics as analogous to changes in foraging intensity. Our review illustrates that the responses of trap‐building and widely‐foraging predators to different internal and external factors, such as hunger level, conspecific density and predation threat are quite similar, calling for additional studies of foraging theory using trap‐building predators. In each chapter of this review, we summarize the response of trap‐building predators to a different factor, while contrasting it with the equivalent response characterizing widely‐foraging predators. We provide here evidence that the behaviour of trap‐building predators is not stereotypic or fixed as was once commonly accepted, rather it can vary greatly, depending on the individual's internal state and its interactions with external environmental factors.