IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v20y2009i3p525-534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The distribution of unequal predators across food patches is not necessarily (semi)truncated

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel M. Smallegange
  • Jaap van der Meer

Abstract

Game theoretical studies on contest behavior suggest that in foraging predators, interference through loss of foraging time is strongest between equal competitors. However, this phenomenon has not been incorporated into mechanistic models of interference. Instead, such models currently assume that individuals suffer most from dominant competitors, resulting in (semi)truncated, ideal free distributions (IFDs) of animals. Here, we develop a mechanistic interference model for 2 types of competitors: subordinates and dominants. The assumptions are that subordinates suffer interference through loss of foraging time from dominants but not vice versa. Time loss is greatest when 2 equal searchers interfere. A striking property of this 2-phenotype interference model is that dominants are most superior at intermediate values of the parameters prey density, handling time, and searching efficiency. This is because there the proportion of interfering subordinates relative to interfering dominants was highest. As the interference area for equal searchers increases, the difference in interference between dominants and subordinates diminishes. The IFD of the model is a mixed one with a larger share of dominants on the better patch but where the range of feeding rates exhibited by dominants and subordinates is the same for each patch. This contrasts with the (semi)truncated IFD predicted from other mechanistic interference models. We illustrate the generality of the model assumptions on interference and suggest that our modeling framework is applicable to many predator--prey systems. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel M. Smallegange & Jaap van der Meer, 2009. "The distribution of unequal predators across food patches is not necessarily (semi)truncated," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(3), pages 525-534.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:525-534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arp027
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoforos Hadjichrysanthou & Mark Broom, 2012. "When should animals share food? Game theory applied to kleptoparasitic populations with food sharing," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(5), pages 977-991.
    2. Allert Imre Bijleveld & Eelke Olov Folmer & Theunis Piersma, 2012. "Experimental evidence for cryptic interference among socially foraging shorebirds," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 806-814.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:525-534. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.