Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
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 (14)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Broom, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ruxton, G. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Broom, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ruxton, G. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 14 No. 1: 23-33
© 2003 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Evolutionarily stable kleptoparasitism: consequences of different prey types

M. Brooma, and G. D. Ruxtonb,

aCentre for Statistics and Stochastic Modelling, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK bDivision of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

Address correspondence to G.D. Ruxton. g.ruxton{at}bio.gla.ac.uk.

We present two elaborations of the model of Broom and Ruxton that found evolutionarily stable kleptoparasitic strategies for foragers. These elaborations relax the assumption that the distribution of times required to handle discovered food items is exponential. These changes increase the complexity of the model but represent a significant improvement in biological realism. In one elaboration, handling takes a fixed interval, th, at the end of which the whole value of the food item is obtained. We liken this to peeling then consuming a small orange. The other elaboration also assumes that handling takes a fixed interval, th, but this time the reward from the food item is extracted continuously throughout the handling period. We liken this to eating an apple. Both models predict that increasing food density, the ease with which food items can be discovered, or the length of aggressive contests all act to make kleptoparasitism less common. The difference between the evolutionarily stable strategy solutions of the apple and orange models provides a clear prediction of our theory. When prey items require handling before yielding a lump sum at the end, then kleptoparasitic attacks will be focused on prey items near the end of their handling period. However, if prey items yield reward continuously during handling, then attacks should be biased toward newly discovered food items. Another key difference between the model predictions is that kleptoparasitism increases with forager density in the apple model, but decreases in the orange model.

Key words: aggression, evolutionarily stable strategy, food stealing, game theory, intraspecific interference.


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]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
A. Ridley and N. Raihani
Facultative response to a kleptoparasite by the cooperatively breeding pied babbler
Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2007; 18(2): 324 - 330.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
M. M. Webster and P. J.B. Hart
Kleptoparasitic prey competition in shoaling fish: effects of familiarity and prey distribution
Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2006; 17(6): 959 - 964.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
A. Kun, G. Boza, and I. Scheuring
Asynchronous snowdrift game with synergistic effect as a model of cooperation
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 633 - 641.
[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.