To eat, or not to eat: a phantom decoy affects information-gathering behavior by a free-ranging mammalian herbivore

When foraging, making appropriate food choices is crucial to an animal’s fitness. Classic foraging ecology theories assume animals choose food of greatest benefit based on their absolute value across multiple dimensions. Consequently, poorer options are considered irrelevant alternatives that should not influence decision-making among better options. But heuristic studies demonstrate that irrelevant alternatives (termed decoys) can influence the decisions of some animals, indicating they use a relative rather than absolute evaluation system. Our aim was to test whether a decoy influenced the decision-making process—that is, information-gathering and food choice—of a free-ranging mammalian herbivore. We tested swamp wallabies, Wallabia bicolor, comparing their behavior toward, and choice of, two available food options over time in the absence or presence of the decoy. We used a phantom decoy—unavailable option—and ran two trials in different locations and seasons. Binary preferences (decoy absent) for the two available food options differed between trials. Irrespective of this difference, across both trials the presence of the decoy resulted in animals more likely to overtly investigate available food options. But, the decoy only shifted food choice, weakly, in one trial. Our results indicate that the decoy influenced the information-gathering behavior during decision-making, providing the first evidence that decoys can affect decision-making process of free-ranging mammalian herbivores in an ecologically realistic context. It is premature to say these findings confirm the use of relative evaluation systems. Whether the foraging outcome is more strongly affected by other decoys, food dimensions, or ecological contexts, is yet to be determined.