Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 Tregenza, T.
Right arrow Articles by Parker, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tregenza, T.
Right arrow Articles by Parker, G. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

research-article

Interference and the ideal free distribution: oviposition in a parasitoid wasp

Tom Tregenza1, David J. Thompson and Geoff A. Parker

Population Biology Research Group, Department of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, University of Liverpool P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

1T. Tregenza is now at the Department of Genetics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

ABSTRACT

The interference ideal free distribution (IFD) model of Sutherland makes a number of predictions that have yet to be tested and that have implications for the validity of subsequent extensions to the theory. We tested these predictions in a study using different densities of the parasitoid wasp, Venturia canescens, foraging on patches containing different densities of its host, Plodia interpunctella. Our results support a number of the interference IFD model's general predictions. Gain rate decreased because of increased interference at higher density. Although gain rates on the two patches differed slighdy, this would be expected allowing for some sampling behavior and perceptual constraints. Early in each experiment when patch assessment is likely to occur, wasp movement was higher and gain rates lower. However, the more specific prediction of Sutherland's model, that proportional patch use should be constant and independent of density, was not upheld. Contemporary IFD models use only one of several equally valid potential relationships between gain rate, interference, and competitor density. The results of this study provide support for the additive model developed by Tregenza et al. (companion article).

Key words: competition, foraging, ideal free distribution, interference, parasitoid, Venturia canescens.


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
X. Fauvergue, R. Boll, J. Rochat, E. Wajnberg, C. Bernstein, and L. Lapchin
Habitat assessment by parasitoids: consequences for population distribution
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 522 - 531.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
P. S. Levin, N. Tolimieri, M. Nicklin, and P. F. Sale
Integrating individual behavior and population ecology: the potential for habitat-dependent population regulation in a reef fish
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2000; 11(5): 565 - 571.
[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.