Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 102, Issue 4, pp 511–514 | Cite as

The intensity of interference varies with resource density: evidence from a field study with snow buntings, Plectrophenax nivalis

  • Paul M. Dolman
Original Paper

Abstract

Intake rates of snow buntings feeding on artificial seed patches were measured at different bird densities, for each of two different seed densities. Interference occurred in the low seed-density treatment, with intake rates declining at high bird densities. However, interference was not found in the high seeddensity treatment. The finding that the strength of interference may depend on resource density contradicts the hypothesis that the functional response is ratio-dependent (Arditi and Akçakaya 1990). The formulation for interference from Hassell and Varley (1969), and the models of Beddington (1975), Ruxton et al. (1992) and Holmgren (1995), also assume that the strength of interference is independent of resource density. The development of behaviour-based models that consider the relation between the intensity of interference, resource density and individual state may provide a more accurate description of the process of interference.

Key words

Interference Competition Foraging theory Ratio dependence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arditi R, Akçakaya HR (1990) Underestimation of mutual interference of predators. Oecologia 83: 358–361Google Scholar
  2. Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (1989) Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio-dependence. J Theor Biol 139: 311–326Google Scholar
  3. Baker MC, Belcher CS, Deutsch LC, Sherman GL, Thompson DB (1981) Foraging success in junco flocks and the effects of social hierarchy. Anim Behav 29: 137–142Google Scholar
  4. Banks K, Clark H, Mackay IRK, Mackay SG, Sellers RM (1990) Ageing, sexing and racing snow buntings in winter plumage. Ringers Bull 7: 84–87Google Scholar
  5. Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol 44: 331–340Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein C, Kacelnik AJ, Krebs JR (1988) Individual decisions and the distribution of predators in a patchy environment. J Anim Ecol 57: 1007–1026Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein C, Kacelnik AJ, Krebs JR (1991) Individual decisions and the distribution of predators in a patchy environment. II. The influence of travel costs and structure of the environment. J Anim Ecol 60: 205–225Google Scholar
  8. Caraco T (1979) Time budgeting and group size: a test of theory. Ecology 60: 618–627Google Scholar
  9. DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O'Neill RV (1975) A model for trophic interaction. Ecology 56: 881–892Google Scholar
  10. Ekman J (1984) Density-dependent seasonal mortality and population fluctuations of the temperate-zone willow tit (Parus montanus). J Anim Ecol 53: 119–134Google Scholar
  11. Ekman J (1990) Alliances in winter flocks of willow tits; effects of rank on survival and reproductive success in male-female associations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26: 239–245Google Scholar
  12. Gauthreaux SA Jr (1978) The ecological significance of behavioural dominance. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol 3: social behaviour. Plenum, New York, pp 17–54Google Scholar
  13. Goss-Custard JD (1980) Competition for food and interference among waders. Ardea 68: 31–52Google Scholar
  14. Goss-Custard JD, Clark RT, Durrell SEA Le V dit (1984) Rates of food intake and aggression of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus on the most and least preferred mussel Mytilus edulis beds of the Exe Estuary. J Anim Ecol 53: 233–245Google Scholar
  15. Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG, Clarke RT, Durell SEA Le V dit, Sutherland WJ (1995) Deriving population parameters from individual variations in foraging behaviour. I. Empirical game theory distribution model of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus feeding on mussels Mytilus edulis. J Anim Ecol 64: 265–276Google Scholar
  16. Hassell MP, Varley GC (1969) New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control. Nature 223: 1133–1136Google Scholar
  17. Holmgren N (1995) The ideal free distribution of unequal competitors: predictions from a behaviour based functional response. J Anim Ecol 64: 197–212Google Scholar
  18. Kotrschal K, Hemetsberger J, Dittami J (1993) Food exploitation by a winter flock of greylag geese: behavioural dynamics, competition and social status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33: 289–295Google Scholar
  19. Metcalfe NB, Wright PJ, Thorpe JE (1992) Relationships between social status, otolith size at first feeding and subsequent growth in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). J Anim Ecol 61: 585–589Google Scholar
  20. Monaghan P (1980) Dominance and dispersal between feeding sites in the herring gull (Larus argentatus). Anim Behav 28: 521–527Google Scholar
  21. Parker GA, Sutherland WJ (1986) Ideal free distributions when individuals differ in competitive ability: phenotype limited ideal free models. Anim Behav 34: 1222–1242Google Scholar
  22. Royama T (1971) Evolutionary significance of predators' response to local differences in prey density: a theoretical study. In: Boer PJ den, Gradwell GR (eds) Dynamics of populations. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, pp 344–357Google Scholar
  23. Ruxton GD, Gurney WSC, De Roos AM (1992) Interference and generation cycles. Theor Popul Biol 42: 235–253Google Scholar
  24. Selman J, Goss-Custard JD (1988) Interference between foraging redsank Tringa totanus. Anim Behav 36: 1542–1544Google Scholar
  25. Smith RD (1992) Age determination, wing-feather colour and winglength change in snow buntings Plectrophenax nivalis. Ringing Migr 13: 43–51Google Scholar
  26. Sutherland WJ (1983) Aggregation and the ideal free distribution. J Anim Ecol 52: 821–828Google Scholar
  27. Sutherland WJ, Dolman PM (1994) Combining behaviour and population dynamics with applications for predicting consequences of habitat loss. Proc R Soc Lond B 255: 133–138Google Scholar
  28. Sutherland WJ, Koene P (1982) Field estimates of the strength of interference between oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus. Oecologia 55: 108–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul M. Dolman
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations