Previous experimental studies of competition among foragers rarely distinguished between exploitation and interference competition. In many systems this separation is experimentally impossible without interfering with the natural behavior of the animals. Consequently, these studies can only demonstrate the combined effect of interference and exploitation on the forager’s feeding rate, namely, it usually decreases in a decelerating rate as a function of density. We suggest here a simple experimental and statistical procedure that facilitates the separation of the effects of interference from those of exploitation. This procedure includes manipulation of both predator density and the foraging experiment duration. The statistical analysis is based on multiple linear regression. The working assumption is that exploitation can be neglected at the beginning of the foraging experiment because, initially, predators do not experience diminishing returns in prey capture rates. Using both the results of an individual-based simulation and a field experiment dataset of gerbils foraging for seeds in an artificial food patch located in the field, we demonstrate that our procedure can successfully detect and separate the effect of interference from the combined overall effect of competition (i.e., interference plus exploitation).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML, Subach A (2001) The cost of interspecific competition in two gerbil species. J Anim Ecol 70:561–567
Anholt BR (1990) An experimental separation of interference and exploitative competition in a larval damselfly. Ecology 71:1483–1493
Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696
DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O’Neil RV (1975) A model for trophic interaction. Ecology 56:881–892
Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572
Gurevitch J, Morrision JA, Hedges LV (2000) The interaction between competition and predation: a meta-analysis of field experiments. Am Nat 155:435–453
Hart DD (1987) Experimental studies of exploitative competition in a grazing stream insect. Oecologia 73:41–47
Huisman G, De Boer RJ (1997) A formal derivation of the “Beddington” functional response. J Theor Biol 185:389–400
Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Norwell
Lerman K, Galstyan A (2002) Mathematical model of foraging in a group of robots: effect of interference. Auton Robots 13:127–141
Moody AL, Ruxton GD (1996) The intensity of interference varies with food density: support for behaviour-based models of interference. Oecologia 108:446–449
Morin PJ (1999) Community ecology. Blackwell, Malden
Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied and linear regression models, 3rd edn. Irwin, Chicago
Nicholls CF, Doxtator EA (1960) An aquarium for maintaining constant prey population densities in studies of predator–prey interactions. J Fish Res Board Can 17:687–688
O’Day DK (2007) Data analysis and visualization with Excel tools and charts. http://processtrends.com/index.htm
Ovadia O, zu Dohna H (2003) The effect of intra- and interspecific aggression on patch residence time in the Negev desert gerbils: a competing risk analysis. Behav Ecol 14:583–591
Ovadia O, Ziv Y, Abramsky Z, Pinshow B, Kotler BP (2001) Harvest rates and foraging strategies in Negev desert gerbils. Behav Ecol 12:219–226
Peckarsky BL (1991) Mechanisms of intra- and interspecific interference between larval stoneflies. Oecologia 85:521–529
Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285
Smallegange IM, Van der Meer J, Kurvers RHJM (2006) Disentangling interference competition from exploitative competition in a crab-bivalve system using a novel experimental approach. Oikos 113:157–167
Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Clarke RT, Durell SEALD (1996) Shape of interference function in a foraging vertebrate. J Anim Ecol 65:813–824
Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG (1997) Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 66:692–703
Sutherland WJ, Koene P (1982) Field estimates of the strength of interference between oystercatchers Haermatopus ostralegus. Oecologia 55:108–109
Tilman D (1987) The importance of the mechanisms of interspecific competition. Am Nat 129:769–774
Vahl WK, Van der Meer J, Weissing FJ, Van Dullemen D, Piersma T (2005) The mechanisms of interference competition: two experiments on foraging waders. Behav Ecol 16:845–855
Van der Meer J, Ens BJ (1997) Models of interference and their consequences for the spatial distribution of ideal and free predators. J Anim Ecol 66:846–858
Wootton JT (1994) Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology 75:151–165
Inon Scharf and Ido Filin contributed equally to this paper.
About this article
Cite this article
Scharf, I., Filin, I. & Ovadia, O. An experimental design and a statistical analysis separating interference from exploitation competition. Popul Ecol 50, 319–324 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-008-0081-9