Alternative models of conspecific attraction in flies and crabs

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 974-980

  Stamps, Judy ^a   McElreath, Richard ^a   Eason, Perri ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

AIC; Alternative models; Conspecific attraction; Weber's law

Indexed keywords

CRAB; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; FLY; HABITAT SELECTION;

ANIMALIA; DECAPODA (CRUSTACEA); DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; OCYPODE ROTUNDATA;

EID: 26444462619     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/ari083     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Amrein H, 2004. Pheromone perception and behavior in Drosophila. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14:435-442.
2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL, 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence and an alternative. J Wildl Manage 64:912-923.
3. Bartelt RJ, Schaner AM, Jackson LL, 1985. Cis-vaccenyl acetate as an aggregation pheromone in Drosophila melanogaster. J Chem Ecol 11:1747-1756.
4. Burggren WW, McMahon BR, 1988. Biology of the land crabs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, 2002. Model selection and multimodal inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6. Chow SL, 1998. Précis of "statistical significance: rationale, validity and utility." Behav Brain Sci 21:169-194.
7. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH, 2004. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487-491.
8. Dehaene S, 2003. The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends Cogn Sci 7:145-147.
9. Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Vitouch O, 2004. The null ritual: what you always wanted to know about significance testing but were afraid to ask. In: Sage handbook of quantitative methods for the social sciences (Kaplan D, ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Hilborn R, Mangel M, 1997. The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
11. Krebs JR, 1974. Colonial nesting and social feeding as strategies of exploiting food resources the great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Behaviour 51:99-134.
12. Lefranc A, Jeune B, Thomas-Orillard M, Danchin E, 2001. Non-independence of individuals in a population of Drosophila melanogaster: effects on spatial distribution and dispersal. C R Acad Sci Ser III Sci Vie 324:219-227.
13. Luttbeg B, Langen TA, 2004. Comparing alternative models to empirical data: cognitive models of Western Scrub Jay foraging behavior. Am Nat 163:263-276.
14. Mogie M, 2004. In support of null hypothesis significance testing. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:S82-S84.
15. Muller KL, Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Willits NH, 1997. The effects of conspecific attraction and habitat quality on habitat selection in territorial birds (Troglodytes aedon). Am Nat 150:650-661.
16. Murton RK, Isaacson AJ, Westwood NJ, 1966. The relationships between wood-pigeons and their clover food supply and the mechanisms of population control. J Appl Ecol 3:55-96.
17. Osses ED, 1998. Aggregation tendency in small groups of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Mol Biol 21:25-30.
18. Piazza M, Izard V, Pinel P, Bihan DL, Dehaene S, 2004. Tuning curves for approximate numerosity in the human intraparietal sulcus. Neuron 44:547-555.
19. Pöysä H, 1991. Effects of predation risk and patch quality on the formation and attractiveness of foraging groups of teal, Anas crecca. Anim Behav 41:285-294.
20. Schuck-Paim C, Alonso WJ, 2001. Deciding where to settle: conspecific attraction and web site selection in the orb-web spider Nephilengys cruentata. Anim Behav 62:1007-1012.
21. Shettleworth S, 1998. Cognition, evolution and behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Skalski GT, Gilliam JF, 2002. Feeding under predation hazard: testing models of adaptive behavior in stream fish. Am Nat 160:158-172.
23. Stamps JA, 1988. Conspecific attraction and aggregation in a territorial species. Am Nat 131:329-347.
24. Stamps JA, 2001. Habitat selection by dispersers: proximate and ultimate approaches. In: Dispersal (Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt A, Nichols J, eds). New York: Oxford University Press; 243-260.
25. Stamps JA, Buechner M, Alexander K, Davis J, Zuniga N, in press. Genotypic differences in space use and movement patterns in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav.
26. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, in press. Non-intuitive cue use in habitat selection. Ecology.
27. Stephens PA, Sutherland WJ, 1999. Consequences of the Allee effect for behaviour, ecology and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 14:401-405.
28. Tompkins L, Hall JC, Hall LM, 1980. Courtship-stimulating volatile compounds from normal and mutant Drosophila. J Insect Physiol 26:689-697.
29. Vannini M, 1976. Researches on the coast of Somalia. The shore and dune of Sar Uanle. 10. Sandy beach decapods (Decapoda Brachyura). Monit Zool Ital 14:57-101.
30. Venard R, Jallon JM, 1980. Evidence for an aphrodisiac pheromone of female Drosophila. Experientia 36:211-212.
31. Ward MP, Schlossberg S, 2004. Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv Biol 18:519-525.
32. Wertheim B, Marchais J, Vet LEM, 2002. Allee effect in larval resource exploitation in Drosophila: an interaction among density of adults, larvae and micro-organisms. Ecol Entomol 27:608-617.
33. Wood CC, 1985. Aggregative response of common mergansers (Mergus merganser): predicting flock size and abundance on Vancouver Island streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:1259-1271.