Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 409–415

Patch choice under perceptual constraints: a cause for departures from an ideal free distribution

  • Mark V. Abrahams


A review of tests of ideal free distribution (IFD) theory reveals a characteristic bias: patches with a small proportion of the resources are relatively overused and patches with a larger proportion of the resources are relatively underused. A model is developed to examine how animals with limited abilities to perceive differences in patch quality affect an IFD by foragers. This constraint produces the observed bias, a bias that is exaggerated as the number of patches increases. Sutherland (1983) has developed a model based on interference which can also explain the observed bias. The two models can be differentiated in that only the perception limit model (this paper) is sensitive to absolute changes in overall resource availability and to increases in the number of animals. Additionally, Sutherland's model predicts that when deviations away from an IFD occur there will be no differences in intake rates, while the perception limit model predicts that intake rates should vary between patches.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Courtney SP, Parker GA (1985) Mating behaviour of the tiger blue butterfly (Tarucus theophrastus): competitive matesearching when not all females are captured. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:213–221Google Scholar
  2. Davies NB, Halliday TR (1979) Competitive mate searching in male common toads, Bufo bufo. Anim Behav 27:1253–1267Google Scholar
  3. Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Fretwell SD, Lucas Jr. HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36Google Scholar
  5. Gillis DM (1985) Animal aggregation, interference and the ideal free distribution, M Sc thesis, McGill University, Montreal P.Q., p 60Google Scholar
  6. Godin J-GJ, Keenleyside MH (1984) Foraging on patchily distributed prey by a cichlid fish (Teleostei, Cichlidae): a test of the ideal free distribution. Anim Behav 32:120–131Google Scholar
  7. Harper DGC (1982) Competitive foraging in mallards: ‘ideal free ducks’. Anim Behav 30: 575–584Google Scholar
  8. Kacelnik A, Krebs JR (1985) Learning to exploit patchily distributed food. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural Ecology: Ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 189–205Google Scholar
  9. Maynard Smith J (1973) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflict. J Theor Biol 47:209–221Google Scholar
  10. Milinski M (1979) An evolutionarily stable feeding strategy in sticklebacks. Z Tierpsychol 51:36–40Google Scholar
  11. Milinski M (1984) Competitive resource sharing: an experimental test of a learning rule for ESSs. Anim Behav 32:233–242Google Scholar
  12. Parker GA (1978) Searching for mates. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 214–244Google Scholar
  13. Parker GA, Sutherland WJ (1986) Ideal free distributions when individuals differ in competetive ability: phenotype-limited ideal free models. Anim Behav 34:1222–1242Google Scholar
  14. Power ME (1984) Habitat quality and the distribution of algae-grazing catfish in a Panamanian canal. J Anim Ecol 53:357–374Google Scholar
  15. Regelmann K (1984) Competetive resource sharing: a simulation model. Anim Behav 32:226–232Google Scholar
  16. Sargent RC, Gross MR, van den Berghe EP (1986) Male mate choice in fishes. Anim Behav 34:545–550Google Scholar
  17. Sutherland WJ (1982) Spatial variation in the predation of cockles by oystercatchers at Traeth Melynog. Anglesey. II. The pattern of mortality. J Anim Ecol 51:491–500Google Scholar
  18. Sutherland WJ (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution. J Anim Ecol 52:821–828Google Scholar
  19. Sutherland WJ, Parker GA (1985) Distribution of unequal competitors. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology: Ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 255–273Google Scholar
  20. Talbot AJ, Kramer DL (1986) Effects of food and oxygen availability on habitat selection by guppies. Can J Zool 64:88–93Google Scholar
  21. Zwarts L, Drent RH (1981) Prey depletion and the regulation of predator density: oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus) feeding on mussels (Mytilus edulis). In: Jones NV, Wolff WJ (eds) Feeding and survival strategies of estuarine organisms. Plenum Publishing Corp, London, pp 193–216Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark V. Abrahams
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological Sciences DepartmentSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations