4.5 Article

The mechanisms of interference competition: two experiments on foraging waders

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 845-855

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ari073

关键词

Arenaria interpres; behavioral mechanisms; Calidris canutus; density dependence; exploitation competition; social dominance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Models of population dynamics that include interference competition have often been applied to foraging waders and less so to other foragers, even though these models are, in principle, generally applicable. At present, however, it is still unclear whether interference competition is of importance for foraging waders. To support this idea experimental evidence and knowledge of the mechanisms underlying interference effects are required. We experimentally determined the relationship between forager density and foraging success in two wader species: the red knot (Calidris canutus) and the ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres). With each of the two species, we conducted an experiment consisting of 300 one-min trials. In these trials we scored the behavior and the foraging success of focal individuals at specific combinations of bird and prey density. Irrespective of prey density, individuals of both species discovered fewer prey items at higher bird densities. Despite this, only in turnstones did intake rates decline with increasing bird density. Knots compensated for a lower prey-discovery rate by rejecting fewer prey items at higher bird densities. In knots, bird density had a complex, nonmonotonic effect on the time spent vigilant and searching. In turnstones the main effect of increased bird density was a reduction in the prey-encounter rate, that is, the reward per unit search time. Effects on the time spent vigilant and the time spent searching were less pronounced than in knots. Thus, the mechanistic basis of the effects of bird density was complex for each of the two species and differed between them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据