Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grant, J. W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Guha, R. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Grant, J. W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Guha, R. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1993 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

research-article

Spatial clumping of food increases its monopolization and defense by convict cichlids, Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum

James W. A. Grant and Rabi T. Guha

Department of Biology, Concordia University 1455 Boulevard de Maisonneuve West, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada

ABSTRACT

The hypothesis that resource monopolization and defense increase as the spatial clumping of resources increases was tested using groups of three convict cichlids competing for 120 Daphnia magna prey. Spatial clumping was manipulated by varying the distance (3, 20, or 40 cm) between three tubes through which the prey appeared. As predicted, monopolization of prey (percentage eaten by the dominant fish) and frequency of aggression (chases per minute) by dominant fish increased significantly as the distance between the tubes decreased. However, there was no evidence of individual flexibility in the aggressiveness (percentage of conspecifics chased) of dominant fish across treatments. Differences among dominant fish in aggressiveness were positively correlated with their ability to monopolize prey, but the strength of the correlation decreased as the distance between the tubes increased. Aggression appears to be a more effective mechanism of interference competition when resources are clumped than when resources are dispersed.

Key words: resourse defence, monopolization, teritoriality, interference competition, resource distribution[Behav Ecol 4:293–296 (1993)].


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
S. E. Overington, F. Dubois, and L. Lefebvre
Food unpredictability drives both generalism and social foraging: a game theoretical model
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2008; 19(4): 836 - 841.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
W. K. Vahl, T. Lok, J. van der Meer, T. Piersma, and F. J. Weissing
Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2005; 16(5): 834 - 844.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
F. Dubois, L.-A. Giraldeau, and J. W. A. Grant
Resource defense in a group-foraging context
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2003; 14(1): 2 - 9.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
J. L. Goldberg, J. W. A. Grant, and L. Lefebvre
Effects of the temporal predictability and spatial clumping of food on the intensity of competitive aggression in the Zenaida dove
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2001; 12(4): 490 - 495.
[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.