ArticlePDF Available

Notes on the foraging behaviour of Eurasian Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus feeding on bread



I report the first documented records of free-living Eurasian Oystercatchers feeding on bread. The observations were made in the city of Groningen and at other localities in The Netherlands. They include instances of adult oystercatchers picking up bread and feeding it to well-grown chicks. Most observations relate to urban habitats. Further studies are needed to evaluate the costs and benefits for oystercatchers of eating bread.
Notes on the foraging behaviour of Eurasian Oystercatchers
Haematopus ostralegus feeding on bread
Klaas van Dijk
Ornithological Society Avifauna Groningen, c/o Vermeerstraat 48, 9718 SN Groningen, The Netherlands.
Dijk, K. van. 2014. Notes on the foraging behaviour of Eurasian Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus
feeding on bread. Wader Study Group Bull. 121(1): 15–17.
Keywords: Eurasian Oystercatcher, Haematopus ostralegus, diet, food, feeding behaviour, eating bread
I report the first documented records of free-living Eurasian Oystercatchers feeding on bread. The observations
were made in the city of Groningen and at other localities in The Netherlands. They include instances of adult
oystercatchers picking up bread and feeding it to well-grown chicks. Most observations relate to urban
habitats. Further studies are needed to evaluate the costs and benefits for oystercatchers of eating bread.
Records of Eurasian Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus
breeding in urban habitats in The Netherlands go back to the
1930s (Hulscher 1976). Nowadays, breeding in urban areas
takes place all over the country (Ens et al. 2011). Almost all
records concern birds nesting on the roofs of buildings. A
census of the entire built-up area of the city of Groningen
(38.6 km2; 53°13’N, 06°34’E) revealed 70 breeding pairs in
2003 (1.8 pairs/km2, Oosterhuis 2004). Dijkstra & Dillerop
(2012) report an increase from 35 pairs in 2008 (8 pairs/km2)
to 49 pairs in 2012 (11 pairs/km2) in a study plot of 4.4 km2
in the city of Assen (53°00’N, 06°34’E). Casual observations
show that these birds forage on earthworms Lumbricidae
and on leatherjackets, the larvae of the cranefly Tipula
paludosa, on lawns, roadside verges, playgrounds and other
places with short vegetation, all being located within a short
distance from the nest (Dijkstra & Dillerop 2012, Oosterhuis
2004, own observations).
Dierschke et al. (2011) depict an adult Eurasian Oyster-
catcher eating food out of a person’s hand. The picture was
taken on the beach at Düne (Helgoland, Germany) on 21
April 2004. Details on the type of food are not provided, but
it is noted that some birds at Düne were specialized in
begging for food and in snatching food from tents and
restaurants. The behaviour of free-living Eurasian Oyster-
catchers deliberately taking food from people is not
mentioned in handbooks or other literature (e.g. Blomert et
al. 1996, Briggs 1980, Cramp & Simmons 1983, Duncan et
al. 2001, Gittings et al. 2012, Glutz von Blotzheim et al.
1984, Goss-Custard 1996, Lynch 1997). Moreover, these
sources do not mention that free-living Eurasian Oyster-
catchers can forage on bread, a source of food made from
Common Wheat Triticum aestivum.
Here I report several cases of Eurasian Oystercatchers
eating bread, together with notes on their behaviour when
taking this type of food. The observations were made in
urban habitats in The Netherlands, unless stated otherwise.
Urban Eurasian Oystercatchers are often tame and used to
people. Therefore, no special effort is needed to observe
them. Records in the city of Groningen are based on my own
observations. Additional records from other parts of The
Netherlands were compiled through an online request for
information and by sending requests to local ornithologists.
Records of Eurasian Oystercatchers eating bread
in the city of Groningen
On 3 June 2011, I assisted Rob Voesten with ringing Black-
headed Gulls Chroicocephalus ridibundus in city parks in
Groningen. These gulls are captured by encouraging them
to walk into a ca. 50-cm noose at the end of a thin 5-m rope
lying on the ground. The ringer holds the other end of the
rope. He throws food, bread or a mixture of tiny pieces of
bread and cheese, to lure the gulls and he pulls the rope to
capture a gull when one is standing in the noose.
The location, Mispelflat, was visited in the evening of
that day. Suddenly an adult Eurasian Oystercatcher landed
nearby. It started walking towards us and started to eat some
of the pieces of bread. The noose was prepared and the
oystercatcher was captured within a few minutes. It had no
obvious brood patch, no actively moulting primaries,
secondaries or tail feathers and it was released with a
stainless steel ring, Arnhem 5.283.649, on its right tibia.
Despite several visits to this site and to the surrounding area
in the next few weeks of that year, the bird was not seen
again. During the breeding season of 2012 I visited
Mispelflat and its surroundings at least weekly, but the
ringed Eurasian Oystercatcher was observed only once, on
6 May 2012, when I saw it at Orionvijver, a location visited
almost daily, and 1.1 km southwest of Mispelflat. For over
half an hour I watched the bird foraging on earthworms on
a grassy verge beside a busy road.
In 2013, I made more observations of oystercatchers
feeding on bread. An unringed adult was seen at Mispelflat
for the first time on 1 June. Probably the same bird was also
seen there several times during 8–10 June. On 9 June, it flew
away with a piece of bread in its bill. On 10 June, it walked
towards me while I was feeding bread to gulls and ducks. It
Wader Study Group Bulletin 121(1) 2014: 15
Wader Study Group Bulletin 121(1) 2014
took some bread and flew away with it in its bill. At 13:00
on 11 June, the bird with Arnhem 5.283.649 was present,
together with two chicks and an unringed mate. Both chicks
were almost able to fly. The ringed adult picked up pieces
of bread offered by me and fed the chicks with small pieces.
By 18:45, the ringed adult and a chick had moved to a
nearby lawn. The lawn was between rows of houses. The
adult was searching for earthworms and all were given to
the chick. The adult stopped foraging in this way as soon as
I threw some small pieces of bread in its direction. It walked
straight towards me, picked up some pieces of bread which
it ate. The same behaviour was noted on 12 June when at
20:00 the ringed adult was seen probing in the grass with a
chick waiting nearby. Once again, as soon as I threw small
pieces of bread in its direction, the adult walked towards me
and started to eat them. The bird also gave bread to the chick.
Within about five minutes, I threw seven pieces of bread
towards the adult. Invariably, the adult walked towards me
to take a new piece of bread. I was unable to find the birds
on 13, 14, 15 and 17 June. The last encounter was at 18:15
on 18 June when both adults were accompanied by one chick
which was just able to fly. The whole family flew away very
quickly. Soon afterwards, I found the unringed adult on a
nearby lawn. Once again, it immediately walked towards me
when I threw bread towards it. The bird picked up bread and
started eating it, but was disturbed by a flock of Lesser
Black-backed Gulls Larus fuscus.
Over the next few weeks, I conducted some investigations
to get an idea about the frequency of this behaviour. I
assessed the behaviour of the adults of nine breeding pairs
in Groningen. All of them foraged on lawns and roadside
verges, and all were used to the proximity of people. I found
the birds while cycling and the birds’ locations were spread
over the city. Each time I found a bird or a pair, I approached
slowly, threw small pieces of bread towards them and noted
their reaction. Six of the nine pairs did not take the bread or
react in any way (only one adult was present in three cases;
both adults were present in the other three cases).
On 27 June 2013, 4.2 km south of Mispelflat, I located
the adults of a roof-nesting pair with two chicks that were
already able to fly. As soon as I threw some pieces of bread
in their direction one of the adults started walking towards
me. I did not see it pick up any bread (but not much time
was spent watching to see if this would happen). The other
adult did not react.
I recorded two more cases of adult oystercatchers taking
bread on 4 July 2013. The first concerned a roof-nesting pair
in an industrial area, 3.1 km southeast of Mispelflat, with at
least one chick which was already able to fly. At first, one
of the adults did not react when I threw bread in its direction,
but later it ate some small pieces. Its mate did not react.
Later, 400 m NNE of the first pair, I located an adult from
another breeding pair foraging on a roadside verge. The bird
approached me when I threw bread in its direction and it ate
some. The bird’s mate was not present. All birds ignored
crusts and other hard parts and only ate soft bread.
Records from elsewhere in The Netherlands of
Eurasian Oystercatchers eating bread
In response to my online request for information, Gerrie
Evers reported that, in the 1980s, Eurasian Oystercatchers
breeding in an industrial area at Vianen (51°59’N, 05°05’E)
would regularly eat small crumbs of bread left over after a
lunchbreak. Martin van de Reep reported an encounter at
Voorburg (52°04’N, 04°23’E) on 2 February 2012 during a
period of severe cold weather. He provided supplementary
food to a mixed flock of birds, mainly gulls and ducks, and
noted an Eurasian Oystercatcher approaching him. The bird
was unable to compete with the large number of hungry gulls
and ducks. Martin directed some of the food towards the
oystercatcher and was able to feed it small pieces of bread
(only the soft parts). Leo Snellink encountered at least four
different pairs in The Hague (52°04’N, 04°17’E) in 2013 of
which the adults ate bread and also fed bread to their chicks
(Fig. 1). On one occasion on 28 June 2013, an adult captured
prey, probably an earthworm, just after Leo had thrown some
bread in its direction. A chick was waiting nearby, but the
adult started to walk in Leo’s direction, with the prey still in
its bill. The adult dropped the prey, picked up some bread
and fed it to the chick. Another adult, with a chick waiting at
Fig. 1. A roof-nesting Eurasian Oystercatcher and its chick at The
Hague, The Netherlands, on 19 June 2013: (a) the adult picks up
bread thrown towards it by the observer, (b) offers the bread to the
chick, (c) which takes and eats it (photo: Leo Snellink).
van Dijk: Notes on the foraging behaviour of Eurasian Oystercatchers feeding on bread 17
a distance of 50 m, attacked a Lesser Black-backed Gull in
order to obtain pieces of bread provided by Leo.
There are also records of oystercatchers eating bread in
non-urban habitats. René Oosterhuis reported that a breeding
pair would eat bread on the island of Griend (53°15’N,
05°15’E), an uninhabited nature reserve in the Dutch
Wadden Sea. In 2000–2001, bread was used to lure Black-
headed Gulls to a clap-net situated close to the wardens’
house (van Dijk & Oosterhuis 2008). Some decades ago,
captive Eurasian Oystercatchers on the island of Schiermon-
nikoog (53°29’N, 06°12’E, Dutch Wadden Sea) also ate
bread (Jan Hulscher, pers. comm.). The birds had been
captured on the nest and were used for various experimental
studies on food intake and feeding behaviour (Hulscher
1974, 1982). When not used for experiments they were fed
with pieces of flesh of Cockles Cerastoderma edule or
Mussels Mytilus edulis. Pieces of bread were also swallowed
on the few occasions when they were offered to them.
These observations are, to the best of my knowledge, the first
documented records of free-living Eurasian Oystercatchers
eating bread, and the first to show that they eat vegetarian
food. However, more observations are needed before firm
conclusions can be drawn about the frequency of this
behaviour or how widespread it occurs geographically.
Some of the adult oystercatchers that were searching for
food for their chicks showed an immediate switch from
invertebrates to bread when bread was offered. This suggests
that bread might be a more profitable type of food to feed to
the chicks than the available invertebrates (Zwarts et al.
1996a, 1996b). Further studies are needed to determine
possible differences in digestibility of bread and of animal
food (Kersten & Visser 1996).
I thank Bert Dijkstra, Rinus Dillerop, Gerrie Evers, Jan
Hulscher, René Oosterhuis, Martin van de Reep, Jan Allex
de Roos, Leo Snellink, Rob Voesten and Henri Zomer for
their help and assistance. I am also grateful to Humphrey
Sitters for his helpful comments and to Bruno Ens for his
review of this paper.
Blomert, A-M., Ens, B.J., Goss-Custard, J.D., Hulscher, J.B. & Zwarts,
L. (eds). 1996. Oystercatchers and their estuarine food supplies. Ardea
84A: 1–538.
Briggs, K.B. 1980. Notes on the feeding techniques of inland feeding
Oystercatchers. Wader Study Group Bull. 28: 31–32.
Cramp, S. & Simmons, K.E.L. (eds). 1983. The Birds of the Western
Palearctic, Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dierschke, J., Dierschke, V., Hüppop, K., Hüppop, O. & Jachmann,
K.F. 2011. Die Vogelwelt der Insel Helgoland. OAG Helgoland,
Dijk, K. van & Oosterhuis, R. 2008. Invloed van vangmethode op de
waargenomen seksratio bij broedende Kokmeeuwen op Griend. Limosa
81: 94–97.
Dijkstra, B. & Dillerop, R. 2012. Urbane en agrarische Scholeksters in en
rond Assen in 2009-2012. Drentse Vogels 26: 4–13.
Duncan, A., Duncan, R., Rae, R., Rebecca, G.W. & Stewart, B.J. 2001.
Roof and ground nesting Eurasian Oystercatchers in Aberdeen. Scottish
Birds 22: 1–8.
Ens, B.J., Aarts, B., Hallmann, C., Oosterbeek, K., Sierdsema, H.,
Slaterus, R., Troost, G., Turnhout, C. van, Wiersma, P., Nienhuis,
J. & Winden, E. van 2011. Scholeksters in de knel: onderzoek naar de
oorzaken van de dramatische achteruitgang van de Scholekster in
Nederland. SOVON-onderzoeksrapport 2011/13. SOVON, Vogelon-
derzoek Nederland, Nijmegen.
Gittings, T., O’Donoghue, P. & Martin, B. 2012. Eurasian Oystercatcher
feeding on sea squirts. Wader Study Group Bull. 119: 204–205.
Glutz von Blotzheim, U.N., Bauer, K.M. & Bezzel, E. (eds). 1984.
Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, Vol. 6 (2nd edition). AULA-Verlag,
Goss-Custard, J.D. (ed). 1996. The Oystercatcher: from individuals to
populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hulscher, J.B. 1974. An experimental study of the food intake of the
Oystercatcher in captivity during the summer. Ardea 62: 155–171.
Hulscher, J.B. 1976. Scholekster - Strânljip. In: Ploeg, D. van der et al.
(eds), Vogels in Friesland. Vol. 1. Fryske Akademy, Ljouwert. pp. 416–
Hulscher, J.B. 1982. The Oystercatcher as a predator of the bivalve
Macoma balthica in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Ardea 70: 89–152.
Kersten, M. & Visser, W. 1996. The rate of food processing in the Oyster-
catcher: food intake and energy expenditure constrained by a digestive
bottleneck. Functional Ecology 10: 440–448.
Lynch, B. 1997. Roof nesting Oystercatchers on Tayside. Tay Ringing
Group Report 1994-95: 20–21.
Oosterhuis, R. 2004. Groninger Scholeksters, van wadvogel naar
stadsvogel? De Grauwe Gors 32: 7–13.
Zwarts, L., Ens, B.J., Goss-Custard, J.D., Hulscher, J.B. & Durell,
S.E.A. 1996. Causes of variation in prey profitability and its conse-
quences for the intake rate of the Oystercatcher. Ardea 84A: 229–268.
Zwarts L., Wanink, J.H. & Ens, B.J. 1996. Predicting seasonal and annual
fluctuations in the local exploitation of different prey by Oystercatchers:
a ten-year study in the Wadden Sea. Ardea 84A: 401–440.
... Oystercatchers (Haematopodidae) are interesting models when investigating the shorebird ability to adapt to urban environments as well as the role of key habitats in that process, once they are widespread, long-living animals, supposedly restrict in habitat use and sensitive to human disturbance (American Oystercatcher Working Group et al. 2012). Ecological plasticity has been observed in Eurasian Oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus) due to the recent colonization of inland human-modified environments (van de Pol et al. 2014), diverse feeding strategies among individuals (van der Kolk et al. 2020) and outstanding reports on bread consumption and successful roof nesting in urban areas (Duncan et al. 2001;van Dijk 2014). A less studied relative, the American Oystercatcher (H. ...
Full-text available
Urbanization is a major form of landscape transformation that often results in habitat degradation and loss for birds. However, effects on avian populations are trait- and context-dependent, and persistence at urban patches is likely to be a function of habitat availability at the landscape scale. Here, we aimed to assess the breeding performance and foraging ecology of a widespread shorebird, the American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus, during the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 breeding seasons at a small urban beach surrounded by a heterogeneous landscape in southern Brazil. Twelve pairs were able to breed consistently and successfully fledge offspring in 20% of nesting attempts at the urban site, with overall productivity of 0.37 fledglings per pair. Food remains collected within seven successful nesting territories and stable isotope analysis in blood samples of adults and chicks indicated that oystercatchers relied on invertebrates from both sandy beaches and rocky shores as food resources. Furthermore, eight out of 21 color-marked individuals from the urban beach were consistently recorded using an insular marine protected area ~ 2 km offshore, revealing a connection between unprotected and protected habitat patches. Although oystercatchers had to perform multiple foraging trips in order to collect food, the ability to explore different environments in the landscape may be critical in the region, especially with human disturbance at its peak on beaches during the summer. Our findings suggest that shorebirds breeding in urban areas may rely on heterogeneous landscapes, where distinct and protected habitat patches can provide complementary resources that allow breeding successfully.
Full-text available
We predict the intake rate and prey choice of Oystercatchers feeding along the Frisian coast, Dutch Wadden Sea, combining the optimal prey choice model (Chamov 1976) with detailed measurements of the widely fluctuating food supply. Assuming that the birds maximize their intake rate, the birds should never eat Mussels Mytilus edulis during 10 years of observations , Mya arenaria during two short periods, Macoma balthica and Scro-bicularia plana during most summers and Cockles Cerastoderma edule in most winters. Observations on feeding Oystercatchers confirmed the predictions. Due to the seasonal variation in burying depth of Scrobicularia and Macoma, these prey were in winter, if not inaccessible, hardly worthwhile exploiting because of the increase of handling time and searching time with burying depth. Hence, the seasonal variation in intake rate was very large in these deep-living prey compared to surface prey, such as Cockles and Mussels. Consequently, Oystercatchers usually switch from surface to deep-living prey in spring and back to surface prey in autumn in order to maximize their intake rate. Oystercatchers will never achieve a high intake rate when they feed on small prey, even when these prey would occur in extremely high densities. The reason for this is that the yield of small prey during handling is even less than the intake rate during feeding of 1 mg ash-free dry weight (AFDW) S-I, which Oystercatchers need to meet their energy demands during the limited feeding periods in the tidal habitat. Since Oystercatchers eat only large bivalves, they might be vulnerable because cohorts of prey may disappear completely before they can be harvested. Despite the very large annual variation in the biomass of the different prey species in the Wadden Sea, the total food supply harvestable by Oystercatchers is large enough for them to stay in the area, unless ice covers the tidal flats. However, Oystercatchers cannot survive in the Wadden Sea when their diet is restricted to one or two prey species. They need to switch between at least 3 or 4 prey species. For the same reason, the birds have to roam over feeding areas measuring at least some ten's of km 2 • The winter remains a difficult period, however. The mortality is higher in winter than in summer and increases with the severity of the winter. Besides, the winter mortality increases when the food consumption is reduced, due to either a low intake rate and/or a short feeding time. Therefore, the wintering numbers of Oystercatchers in the Wadden Sea are limited during circumstances which occur in only some of the winters, viz. when ice covers the feeding areas and the harvestable food supplies are low. The total biomass of the five bivalve species in the study area amounted to 81 g ash-free dry flesh (AFDW) m-2 , on average. The annual production was 56 g m-2 , but only 32 g m-2 can be considered as exploitable by Oyster
Full-text available
Prey species have different morphological and behavioural adaptations to escape their predators. In this paper we review how these prey defenses affect prey profitability and intake rate for one predator, the Oystercatcher. Four rules govern profitability. First, within each species large prey are more profitable than small prey, because flesh content increases more steeply with prey size than handling time. Second, soft-bodied prey, such as worms and leatherjackets, which can be swallowed whole, are much more profitable than armoured prey, such as bivalves, which Oystercatchers have to open before the flesh can be extracted from the shell. Third, heavily armoured surface-dwelling prey, like Mussels and Cockles, are the least profitable prey of all, even if the armour is bypassed through stabbing the bill between the valves. Fourth, within the burying prey species, the profitability of prey decreases with depth. Hence burying bivalve species that bury in winter at larger depth than in summer, are in winter, if not out of reach of the bill, anyway less profitable. Despite the large differences between the profitabilities of the various prey species, the intake rates do not differ much when the prey species are compared, presumably because prey with a low profitability are only exploited if the search time is relatively short, i.e. if the density of harvestable prey is high. On the other hand, within each species, the intake rate goes up if larger, more profitable prey are taken. Thus, if the birds have to feed on smaller prey specimens, they fail to fully compensate for the low profitability by an increase in the rate at which these prey are found. Although the profitability of prey differs seasonally due to the variation in the prey condition, only a small seasonal variation in the intake rate was found. Because burying bivalves and soft-bodied worms bury deeper and are less active in winter, Oystercatchers necessarily rely on bivalves living at, or just beneath, the surface at that time of year.
In 1999-2001 Black-headed Gulls were ringed in a large colony of around 25,000 breeding pairs on the island of Griend (53°15'N, 05°15'E) in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Their sexes were determined by a discriminant function based on structural measurements (Palomares er al. 1997) We observed remarkable differences in the sex ratio of trapped gulls between two catching methods used (Tab. 1). Birds trapped on the nest with a walk-in cage were males in 52.9% of 121 cases, agreeing well with data from the literature. In contrast, 80.7% of 270 adults (after second-calendar year) lured to a clap-net in the colony close to the wardens'with bread and small parts of fish were males. All catches were made between mid April and mid July, a period during which virtually all adults present on Griend are thought to belong to the local breeding population. We discuss that a biased sex ratio within the population seems unlikely, but differences between the sexes in feeding behaviour offer a good explanation. These may include differences in the choice of food and feeding location, and differences in dominance at the feeding location. Both have been suggested by previous studies, but future research is needed to clarify how exactly breeding male and female Black-headed Gulls differ in feeding behaviour.
Relations between Haemotopus ostralegus and Macoma are described: the method of localization of Macoma, the consequences the way of localization has for the sizes of Macoma that are taken, the way Macoma is opened and the role Macoma plays as bulk food for oystercatchers.-from Author
The Oystercatcher is a specialised feeder on bivalves in estuarine areas. Among the different prey specics taken Macoma can be considered to be an important one. In this study some relations between Oystercatchers and this prey are described: the method of localization of Macoma, the consequences the way of localization has for the sizes of Macoma that are taken (selection for size), the way Macoma is opened and the role Macoma plays as bulk food for Oystercatchers. ... Zie Summary
1. Whether food intake is determined by the maximum rate at which animals can collect food, or by the rate at which this food can be processed, will strongly affect the organization of their behaviour. We investigated whether the digestive system imposes a constraint on (I) instantaneous rate of food acquisition, (2) total daily food consumption and (3) sustainable maximum energy expenditure in the Oystercatcher, Haematopus ostralegus. We measured the rate of food processing in captive birds from the cumulative loss of body mass after the consumption of various amounts of mussels, Mytilus edulis. 2, Mass loss associated with the digestion of food can be conveniently described by a three-parameter model. These parameters are: (1) latency time, the time interval that elapses between the ingestion of the first food item and the production of the first elapses (28.3 min), (2) evacuation rare, the rate with which digested fod is defecated (0.233 g min(-1)) and (3) absorption coefficient, the proportion of the food (fresh mass) which is not defecated (11.3%). The value of all three parameters was independent of the amount of food consumed, 3, Since the birds absorbed 11.3% of the food, the rate of food processing is slightly higher than the evacuation rate and amounts to 0.263 g min(-1). 4. Given the energy content of the food (3.58 kJ g(-1) fresh mass) and an assimilation efficiency of 85.4%, the instantaneous rate of energy assimilation is 13.4 W. 5. An 80-g food storage capacity in the oesophagus enables the bird to continue digestion during most of the high-water roosting period. Consequently, the maximum amount of energy that can be assimilated during a 24-h day with two low-water feeding periods amounts to 1067 ELT, which equals 4.25 times the basal metabolic rare. This figure probably reflects the maximum sustained working level. 6. Free-living Oystercatchers collect food much faster than they are able to process it. A digestive bottleneck forces them to interrupt their feeding at regular intervals, even when they attempt to collect the maximum amount of food that can be dealt with by the digestive tract. The main implication of such a digestive bottleneck is that a considerable amount of time becomes available for activities other than feeding. In practice, mast of this spare time is spent inactive and we will point out how some evolutionary oddities, such as laziness and individual differences in prey preferences, may have evolved as by-products of a digestive bottleneck.