Skip to main content

An experimental design and a statistical analysis separating interference from exploitation competition

Abstract

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Abramsky Z, Rosenzweig ML, Subach A (2001) The cost of interspecific competition in two gerbil species. J Anim Ecol 70:561–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anholt BR (1990) An experimental separation of interference and exploitative competition in a larval damselfly. Ecology 71:1483–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O’Neil RV (1975) A model for trophic interaction. Ecology 56:881–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurevitch J, Morrision JA, Hedges LV (2000) The interaction between competition and predation: a meta-analysis of field experiments. Am Nat 155:435–453

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart DD (1987) Experimental studies of exploitative competition in a grazing stream insect. Oecologia 73:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman G, De Boer RJ (1997) A formal derivation of the “Beddington” functional response. J Theor Biol 185:389–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy PA (2001) Competition, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman K, Galstyan A (2002) Mathematical model of foraging in a group of robots: effect of interference. Auton Robots 13:127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody AL, Ruxton GD (1996) The intensity of interference varies with food density: support for behaviour-based models of interference. Oecologia 108:446–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin PJ (1999) Community ecology. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied and linear regression models, 3rd edn. Irwin, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peckarsky BL (1991) Mechanisms of intra- and interspecific interference between larval stoneflies. Oecologia 85:521–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Clarke RT, Durell SEALD (1996) Shape of interference function in a foraging vertebrate. J Anim Ecol 65:813–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG (1997) Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 66:692–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Koene P (1982) Field estimates of the strength of interference between oystercatchers Haermatopus ostralegus. Oecologia 55:108–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1987) The importance of the mechanisms of interspecific competition. Am Nat 129:769–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wootton JT (1994) Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology 75:151–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inon Scharf.

Additional information

Inon Scharf and Ido Filin contributed equally to this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-008-0081-9

Keywords

  • Functional response
  • Individual based model
  • Searching behavior