Temporally fluctuating prey and coexistence among unequal conspecific interferers

Oikos

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 411-415

  Nilsson, P Anders ^a,b   Ruxton, Graeme D ^a   Nilsson, J Håkan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); FORAGING BEHAVIOR; INTERFERENCE COMPETITION; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION;

EID: 0037499785     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12384.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Armstrong, R. A. and McGehee, R. 1980. Competitive exclusion. - Am. Nat. 115: 151-170.
2. Beddington, J. R. 1975. Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. - J. Anim. Ecol. 44: 331-340.
3. Chesson, P. L. 1985. Coexistence of competitors in spatially and temporally varying environments: a look at the combined effects of different sorts of variability. - Theor. Popul. Biol. 28: 263-287.
4. Elliot, J. M. 1994. Quantitative ecology and the brown trout. - Oxford Univ. Press.
5. Ens, B. J. and Goss-Custard, J. D. 1986. Piping as a display of dominance by wintering oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus. - Ibis 128: 382-391.
6. Giraldeau, L.-A. and Caraco, T. 2000. Social foraging theory. - Princeton Univ. Press.
7. Goss-Custard, J. D. 1996. The oystercatcher: from individuals to populations. - Oxford Univ. Press.
8. Grant, J. W. A. and Kramer, D. L. 1992. Temporal clumping of food arrival reduces its monopolization and defence by zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio. - Anim. Behav. 44: 101-110.
9. Hogstad, O. 1986. It is expensive to be dominant. - Auk 104: 333-336.
10. Holling, C. S. 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. - Can. Entomol. 91: 293-320.
11. Huisman, J. and Weissing, F. J. 1999. Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos. - Nature 402: 407-410.
12. Jakobsson, S., Brick, O. and Kullberg, C. 1995. Escalated fighting behaviour incurs increased predation risk. - Anim. Behav. 49: 235-239.
13. Martin-Smith, K. M. and Armstrong, J. D. 2002. Growth rates of wild stream-dwelling Atlantic salmon correlate with activity and sex but not dominance. - J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 413-423.
14. Moody, A. L. and Ruxton, G. D. 1996. The intensity of interference varies with food density: support for behaviour-based models of interference. - Oecologia 108: 446-449.
15. Monaghan, P. and Metcalfe, N. B. 1985. Foraging in wild brown hares: effects of resource distribution and social status. - Anim. Behav. 33: 993-999.
16. Nakano, S. 1995. Individual differences in resource use, growth and emigration under the influence of a dominance hierarchy in fluvial red-spotted masu salmon in a natural habitat. - J. Anim. Ecol. 64: 75-84.
17. Pedersen, B. K. and Hoffman-Goetz, L. 2000. Exercise and the immune system: regulation, integration, and adaptation. - Physiol. Rev. 80: 1055-1081.
18. Ruxton, G. D. 1999. The differing effects of interference on individuals of different rank. - Ecol. Lett. 2: 4-5.
19. Sommer, U. 1985. Comparison between steady state and non-steady state competition: experiments with natural phytoplankton. - Limnol. Oceanogr. 30: 335-346.
20. Stillman, R. A., Caldow, R. W. G., Goss-Custard, J. D. and Alexander, M. J. 2000. Individual variation in intake rate: the relative importance of foraging efficiency and dominance. - J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 484-493.
21. Triplet, P., Stillman, R. A. and Goss-Custard, J. D. 1999. Prey abundance and the strength of interference in a foraging shorebird. - J. Anim. Ecol. 68: 254-265.