Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on November 8, 2006
Behavioral Ecology 2007 18(1):215-221; doi:10.1093/beheco/arl071
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/1/215    most recent
arl071v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smallegange, I. M.
Right arrow Articles by van der Meer, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Smallegange, I. M.
Right arrow Articles by van der Meer, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Interference from a game theoretical perspective: shore crabs suffer most from equal competitors

Isabel M. Smallegange and Jaap van der Meer

Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), Department of Marine Ecology and Evolution, PO Box 59, NL—1790 AB, Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands

Address correspondence to I.M. Smallegange, who is now at Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Vogelwarte Radolfzell, Schlossallee 2, 78315 Radolfzell, Germany. E-mail: smallegange{at}orn.mpg.de.


   Abstract

In virtually all natural systems, interference competition among individuals is asymmetric. Here, we used game theoretical models on contest behavior to predict how time lost in agonistic interactions could affect strength of interference under asymmetric competition. We hypothesized that interference through time lost in agonistic interactions would result in a greater reduction in available foraging time and overall feeding rate under symmetric competition than under asymmetric competition. We tested this hypothesis for male shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) that foraged on mussels (Mytilus edulis) in an experiment where prey levels were kept constant. We varied absolute size of crabs (juveniles, small adults, large adults), mussel density (4, 16, 32 per 0.25 m2), and competitor size (smaller, equal, larger). Large adults spent more time in aggressive behaviors than juveniles or small adults, possibly because large adults were more persistent in interfering or because large adults were intrinsically more aggressive, as the experiment was conducted in the mating season. When handling prey, crabs mostly avoided competitors, but juveniles and small adults did so more than large adults. When searching for prey, crabs mostly displaced smaller competitors but threatened or avoided size-matched or larger competitors. By avoiding a competitor, the focal crab lost time but the competitor often did not, and this asymmetry in agonistic behavior is not yet incorporated in models on contest behavior. However, overall, negative effects of others were strongest with size-matched competitors, in line with our hypothesis.

Key words: aggressive behavior, dominance, energetic war of attrition, functional response, ideal free distribution, sequential assessment game.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
I. M. Smallegange and J. van der Meer
The distribution of unequal predators across food patches is not necessarily (semi)truncated
Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2009; 20(3): 525 - 534.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.