Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones
Vahl, W.K.; Lok, T.; van der Meer, J.; Piersma, T.; Weissing, F.J. (2005). Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones. Behav. Ecol. 16(5): 834-844. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari067
In: Behavioral Ecology. Oxford University Press: New York. ISSN 1045-2249; e-ISSN 1465-7279, meer
Is gerelateerd aan:Vahl, W.K.; Lok, T.; van der Meer, J.; Piersma, T.; Weissing, F.J. (2006). Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones, in: Vahl, W.K. Interference competition among foraging waders. pp. 67-89, meer
|   |
| Auteurs | | Top |
- Vahl, W.K.
- Lok, T.
- van der Meer, J., meer
|
- Piersma, T.
- Weissing, F.J.
|
|
| Abstract |
In studying the success of foraging animals, studies of interference competition have put emphasis on effects of competitor density, whereas studies of resource defense have focused on the effects of the spatial distribution of food within patches. Very few studies have looked at both factors simultaneously, that is, determined whether the effects of competitor density on foraging success depend on the spatial distribution of food. We studied the behavior and the foraging success of ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres) using an experiment in which we varied both the presence of a competitor and the food distribution. Because turnstones may differ strongly in their relative dominance status, we also experimentally varied the foragers' relative dominance status. We found that the presence of a competitor only reduced the foraging success of subordinate birds foraging at the clumped food distribution. At this condition, dominant and subordinate birds differed markedly in their foraging success. Contrary to our expectations, we did not observe more agonistic behavior at the clumped food distribution. This indicates that the amount of agonistic behavior observed may be a bad indicator of interference effects. These findings have specific implications for models of interference competition. Most notably they show that the effects of competitor density on agonistic behavior and foraging success may well depend on the spatial distribution of food and the foragers' relative dominance status. Additionally, our results suggest that social dominance will not be fully understood without considering long-term processes such as the formation and maintenance of social dominance hierarchies. |
|
