Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on June 22, 2005
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(5):834-844; doi:10.1093/beheco/ari067
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones
a Department of Marine Ecology and Evolution, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), P.O. Box 59, 1790 AB Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands, and b Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, Kerklaan 30, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands
Address correspondence to W.K. Vahl. E-mail: vahl{at}nioz.nl.
In studying the success of foraging animals, studies of interference competition have put emphasis on effects of competitor density, whereas studies of resource defense have focused on the effects of the spatial distribution of food within patches. Very few studies have looked at both factors simultaneously, that is, determined whether the effects of competitor density on foraging success depend on the spatial distribution of food. We studied the behavior and the foraging success of ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres) using an experiment in which we varied both the presence of a competitor and the food distribution. Because turnstones may differ strongly in their relative dominance status, we also experimentally varied the foragers' relative dominance status. We found that the presence of a competitor only reduced the foraging success of subordinate birds foraging at the clumped food distribution. At this condition, dominant and subordinate birds differed markedly in their foraging success. Contrary to our expectations, we did not observe more agonistic behavior at the clumped food distribution. This indicates that the amount of agonistic behavior observed may be a bad indicator of interference effects. These findings have specific implications for models of interference competition. Most notably they show that the effects of competitor density on agonistic behavior and foraging success may well depend on the spatial distribution of food and the foragers' relative dominance status. Additionally, our results suggest that social dominance will not be fully understood without considering long-term processes such as the formation and maintenance of social dominance hierarchies.
Key words: agonistic interactions, Arenaria interpres, density dependence, foraging behavior, foraging experiment, resource defense.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. M. Smallegange and J. van der Meer Interference from a game theoretical perspective: shore crabs suffer most from equal competitors Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2007; 18(1): 215 - 221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. J Tanner Numerical assessment affects aggression and competitive ability: a team-fighting strategy for the ant Formica xerophila Proc R Soc B, November 7, 2006; 273(1602): 2737 - 2742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|