Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing Between Interference and Exploitation Competition for Shelter in a Mobile Fish Population

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding the functional significance of shelter for animal populations requires knowledge of the behavioural mechanisms that govern the dynamics of shelter use. Exploitation of shelters may be impeded by mutual interference, yet interference competition can be difficult to distinguish from exploitation competition. We used bullheads (Cottus gobio) as a model system of mobile fish to investigate the effect of intraspecific competition on shelter use. A series of field experiments was conducted under controlled conditions of shelter availability and population density. For each experiment, the location of each individual fish was observed over a period of 10 days. We then constructed a continuous-time Markov-chain model for the movement of fish between shelters and the open stream, which explicitly parameterised exploitation competition and interference competition for shelter and which accounted for two different size-classes of fish. By using a stochastic rather than a deterministic model, we were able to account for the distribution of fish across shelters, and not just the average occupation. Analysis of the model showed strong evidence of exploitation competition, which was highly dependent on body size, and an increased departure rate from shared shelters. Over and above exploitation, interference competition limited the ability of unsheltered fish to colonise vacant shelters at high population densities. Different formulations of the interference competition were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion. The formulation that best fitted the observations modelled interference competition as an increasing function of average shelter occupancy rather than population density per se.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allouche, S. (2002). Nature and functions of cover for riverine fish. Bulletin Franais de la Pche et de la Pisciculture, 365/366, 297–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong, J.D., & Griffiths, S.W. (2001). Density-dependent refuge use among over-wintering wild Atlantic salmon juveniles. Journal of Fish Biology, 58, 1524–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baltz, D.M., Moyle, P.B., & Knight, N.J. (1982). Competitive interactions between benthic stream fishes, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, and speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 39, 1502–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boussu, M.F. (1954). Relationship between trout populations and cover on a small stream. Journal of Wildlife Management, 18, 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, L.R. (1991). Differences in habitat choice and behavior among 3 species of sculpin (Cottus) in artificial stream channels. Copeia, 1991, 810–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cunjak, R.A. (1988). Behaviour and microhabitat of young Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) during winter. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 45, 2156–2160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cunjak, R.A., & Power, G. (1986). Winter habitat utilization by stream resident brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 43, 1970–1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davey, A.J.H., Hawkins, S.J., Turner, G.F., & Doncaster, C.P. (2005). Size-dependent microhabitat use and intraspecific competition in Cottus gobio. Journal of Fish Biology, 67, 428–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Doncaster, C.P., & Gustafsson, L. (1999). Density dependence in resource exploitation: empirical test of Levins’ metapopulation model. Ecology Letters, 2, 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dubs, D.O.L., & Corkum, L.D. (1996). Behavioral interactions between round gobies (Neogobius melanostomus) and mottled sculpins (Cottus bairdi). Journal of Great Lakes Research, 22, 838–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eklv, A.G., & Greenberg, L.A. (1998). Effects of artificial instream cover on the density of 0+ brown trout. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 5, 45–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Figler, M.H., Cheverton, H.M., & Blank, G.S. (1999). Shelter competition in juvenile red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii): The influence of sex differences, relative size and prior residence. Aquaculture, 178, 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gill, P.E., Murray, W., & Wright, M.H. (1991). Numerical Linear Algebra and Optimization (Vol. 1). Redwood City: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goss-Custard, J.D., Caldow, R.W.G., Clarke, R.T., & West, A.D. (1995). Deriving population parameters from individual variations in foraging behaviour. II. Model tests and population parameters. Journal of Animal Ecology, 64, 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Greenberg, L.A. (1988). Interactive segregation between the stream fishes Etheostoma simoterum and E. rufilineatum. Oikos, 51, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gregory, J.S., & Griffith, J.S. (1996). Aggressive behaviour of underyearling rainbow trout in simulated winter concealment habitat. Journal of Fish Biology, 49, 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gries, G., & Juanes, F. (1998). Microhabitat use by juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) sheltering during the day in summer. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 1441–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Griffiths, S.W., & Armstrong, J.D. (2002). Rearing conditions influence refuge use among overwintering Atlantic salmon juveniles. Journal of Fish Biology, 60, 363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guan, R., & Wiles, P.R. (1997). Ecological impact of introduced crayfish on benthic fishes in a British lowland river. Conservation Biology, 11, 641–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harwood, A.J., Metcalfe, N.B., Griffiths, S.W., & Armstrong, J.D. (2002). Intra- and inter-specific competition for winter concealment habitat in juvenile salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1515–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Imre, I., Grant, J.W.A., & Keeley, E.R. (2002). The effect of visual isolation on territory size and population density of juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 303–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kalleberg, H. (1958). Observations in a stream tank of territoriality and competition in juvenile salmon and trout (Salmo salar L. and S. trutta L.). Report Institute of Freshwater Research Drottningholm, 39, 55–98.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ladich, F. (1989). Sound production by the river bullhead, Cottus gobio L. (Cottidae, Teleostei). Journal of Fish Biology, 35, 531–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lessells, C.M. (1995). Putting resource dynamics into continuous input ideal free distribution models. Animal Behaviour 49, 487–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mills, C.A., & Mann, R.H.K. (1983). The bullhead Cottus gobio, a versatile and successful fish. Freshwater Biological Association Annual Report, 51, 76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mullen, D.M., & Burton, T.M. (1998). Experimental tests of intraspecific competition in stream riffles between juvenile and adult longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 855–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Powell, M.J.D. (1978). A fast algorithm for nonlinearly constrained optimization calculations. In G. A. Watson (Ed.), Numerical analysis. Lecture notes in mathematics (Vol. 630). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rangeley, R.W., & Kramer, D.L. (1998). Density-dependent antipredator tactics and habitat selection in juvenile pollock. Ecology, 73, 943–952.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saunders, J.W., & Smith, M.W. (1962). Physical alteration of stream habitat to improve trout production. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 91, 185–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sloman, K.A., & Armstrong, J.D. (2002). Physiological effects of dominance hierarchies: laboratory artefacts or natural phenomena? Journal of Fish Biology, 61, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Smyly, W.J.P. (1957). The life-history of the bullhead or Miller’s Thumb (Cottus gobio L.). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 128, 431–453.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Soderback, B. (1994). Interactions among juveniles of two freshwater crayfish species and a predatory fish. Oecologia, 100, 229–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stillman, R.A., Goss-Custard, J.D., & Caldow, R.W.G. (1997). Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. Journal of Animal Ecology, 66, 692–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Valdimarsson, S.K., & Metcalfe, N.B. (1998). Shelter selection in juvenile Atlantic salmon, or why do salmon seek shelter in winter? Journal of Fish Biology, 52, 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. van der Meer, J., & Ens, B.J. (1997). Models of interference and their consequences for the spatial distribution of ideal and free predators. Journal of Animal Ecology, 66, 846–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vorburger, C., & Ribi, G. (1999). Aggression and competition for shelter between a native and an introduced crayfish in Europe. Freshwater Biology, 42, 111–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Welton, J.S., Mills, C.A., & Rendle, E.L. (1983). Food and habitat partitioning in two small benthic fishes, Noemacheilus barbatulus (L.) and Cottus gobio (L.). Archiv Fr Hydrobiologie, 97, 434–454.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WRc plc, Swindon, SN5 8YF, UK

    A. J. H. Davey

  2. School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UK

    C. P. Doncaster

  3. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    O. D. Jones

Authors
  1. A. J. H. Davey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. P. Doncaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. D. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. D. Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davey, A.J.H., Doncaster, C.P. & Jones, O.D. Distinguishing Between Interference and Exploitation Competition for Shelter in a Mobile Fish Population. Environ Model Assess 14, 555–562 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-008-9171-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-008-9171-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation