Literature DB >> 28306895

The intensity of interference varies with resource density: evidence from a field study with snow buntings, Plectrophenax nivalis.

Paul M Dolman1.   

Abstract

Intake rates of snow buntings feeding on artificial seed patches were measured at different bird densities, for each of two different seed densities. Interference occurred in the low seed-density treatment, with intake rates declining at high bird densities. However, interference was not found in the high seeddensity treatment. The finding that the strength of interference may depend on resource density contradicts the hypothesis that the functional response is ratio-dependent (Arditi and Akçakaya 1990). The formulation for interference from Hassell and Varley (1969), and the models of Beddington (1975), Ruxton et al. (1992) and Holmgren (1995), also assume that the strength of interference is independent of resource density. The development of behaviour-based models that consider the relation between the intensity of interference, resource density and individual state may provide a more accurate description of the process of interference.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Competition; Foraging theory; Interference; Ratio dependence

Year:  1995        PMID: 28306895     DOI: 10.1007/BF00341364

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  4 in total

1.  Underestimation of mutual interference of predators.

Authors:  R Arditi; H R Akçakaya
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Field estimates of the strength of interference between oystercatchers haematopus ostralegus.

Authors:  William J Sutherland; Paul Koene
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control.

Authors:  M P Hassell; G C Varley
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1969-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Combining behaviour and population dynamics with applications for predicting consequences of habitat loss.

Authors:  W J Sutherland; P M Dolman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1994-02-22       Impact factor: 5.349

  4 in total
  6 in total

1.  Interference competition and temporal niche shifts: elephants and herbivore communities at waterholes.

Authors:  Marion Valeix; Simon Chamaillé-Jammes; Hervé Fritz
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2007-06-14       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  The intensity of interference varies with food density: support for behaviour-based models of interference.

Authors:  Anthony L Moody; Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Functional response of staging semipalmated sandpipers feeding on burrowing amphipods.

Authors:  Guy Beauchamp
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2009-06-20       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Nonlinear effects of food aggregation on interference competition in mallards.

Authors:  Abel Gyimesi; Erica P van Rooij; Bart A Nolet
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Larvivorous potentiality of Puntius tetrazona and Hyphessobrycon rosaceus against Culex vishnui subgroup in laboratory and field based bioassay.

Authors:  Mousumi Barik; Indranil Bhattacharjee; Anupam Ghosh; Goutam Chandra
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2018-11-08

6.  Seasonal variation in the utility of a status signaling system: Plumage ornament predicts foraging success only during periods of high competition.

Authors:  Philip S Queller; Troy G Murphy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.