Foraging in groups of water striders (Gerris remigis): effects of variability in prey arrivals and handling times

Blanckenhorn, Wolf U.

doi:10.1007/bf00172174

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dominant convict cichlids were able to defend the asynchronously arriving food effectively, and hence increased their share of the food. Such increases in monopolization have been previously observed as the arrival of food (Blanckenhorn 1991; Grant & Kramer 1992; Bryant & Grant 1995; Blanckenhorn et al. 1998) or mates (Bryant & Grant 1995; Grant et al.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…For example, resource monopolization might increase as resource arrival becomes more asynchronous, even in a non-aggressive species (Fig. 1b), because superior scramble competitors can potentially compete for each newly arriving resource unit (Blanckenhorn 1991;Grant & Kramer 1992;Grant et al 1995). However, resource monopolization will be higher when aggressive individuals are able to defend good sites and hence acquire even more of the asynchronous resource (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Causes of Resource Monopolization: Interaction Between Resource Dispersion and Mode of Competition

Weir

Grant

2004

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The degree of monopolization of resources is thought to be higher in groups that compete by interference than by exploitation. However, the monopolization of resources will presumably depend on (1) whether the dispersion of resources is economically defendable, and (2) whether some competitors have the ability to defend these resource distributions and hence capitalize on this potential. We tested for an interaction between the effects of temporal resource dispersion and aggressiveness on the degree of resource monopolization in a foraging system. Two species of fish differing markedly in aggressiveness (high: convict cichlids, Archocentrus nigrofasciatus; low: goldfish, Carrasius auratus) were allowed to compete intra‐specifically in groups of four for food that was either potentially defendable (arrived asynchronously) or not (arrived synchronously). As predicted, the monopolization of food, measured as the coefficient of variation of food eaten within groups, was significantly higher in the defendable than in the undefendable treatment for convict cichlids but not for goldfish. However, the monopolization of food was higher in the non‐aggressive goldfish than in the aggressive convict cichlids. Future studies should quantify and compare the monopolization in species that compete primarily via scramble competition to those that use primarily resource defence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Causes of Resource Monopolization: Interaction Between Resource Dispersion and Mode of Competition

Weir

Grant

2004

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the exception of a study by Grant and Kramer (1992), the few tests of the hypothesis focus only on measures of monopolization, primarily the variance of male mating success, and the results have either been equivocal (Gatz, 1981;Ridley, 1986, but see Altmann, 1990) or opposite to the predicted direction (Ryan, 1985). However, Blanckenhorn (1991) has recently shown that monopolization of food by water striders, Gerris remigis, decreased when temporal clumping increased, as predicted by the theory. Grant and Kramer (1992) tested the temporal clumping hypothesis using groups of six, individually tagged zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio, competing for 300 Daphnia pulex prey.…”

Section: Temporal Clumpingmentioning

confidence: 73%

Whether or not to defend? The influence of resource distribution

Grant

1993

Marine Behaviour and Physiology

241

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Partial correlation analysis of the number of aggressive acts performed and fish size (L F ) with: (1) number of pellets captured, (2) number of times in the upstream-most position of a group, (3) number of focal positions used, (4) number of times alone, (5) size of the aggressive area, and (6) the upstream-most position within groups; a position that has been shown to produce higher feeding rates in other drift-feeding, stream taxa (Blanckenhorn, 1991b;Nakano, 1995). Similar to the present findings for rosyside dace, dominant individuals in stream-dwelling, drift-feeding fishes and water striders have been shown to place themselves upstream of conspecifics (Blanckenhorn, 1991b;Hughes, 1992;Nakano & Furukawa-Tanaka, 1994;Nakano, 1995;Katano, 1996). The study suggest that rosyside dace also utilized intraspecific aggression for defence of a particular position relative to neighbouring conspecifics rather than an exclusive-use foraging area (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The feeders dropped groups of pellets into the stream at the same time, and thus, increased temporal clumping of food arrival relative to field conditions (Freeman & Grossman, 1992). Such temporal clumping of prey can produce increased foraging rates for subordinates, because dominants may not be able to monopolize a large number of simultaneously arriving prey (Blanckenhorn, 1991b;Grant & Kramer, 1992). Occupying the upstream-most position in a foraging group can also be adaptive because it ensures the first opportunity to capture the scarce, though energetically important, large prey present in the drift, as suggested by Freeman & Grossman (1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraspecific aggression in rosyside dace, a drift‐feeding stream cyprinid

Rincón

Grossman

2001

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides in a semi-natural, artificial stream displayed substantial differences in their aggressiveness and could be classified as: (1) non-aggressive (NA, 18 of 30 rosyside dace), (2) moderately aggressive (MA, 9 of 30) and (3) highly aggressive (HA, 3 of 30). Rosyside dace groups, however, did not exhibit linear dominance hierarchies and fish size was only weakly correlated with the number of aggressive acts performed per individual. Small rosyside dace (<56 mm L F ) were always non-aggressive, but larger fish were present in all three aggression classes. The difference in size between the contestants was significantly, although not very strongly, correlated with the probability of winning an agonistic interaction (r 2 =0·39). Aggressive rosyside dace may have ultimately gained higher fitness than less aggressive ones. HA individuals occupied the upstream-most position within foraging groups significantly more often than other rosyside dace. This location should be the most profitable one because its occupant will be the first to encounter prey. HA rosyside dace also occupied significantly higher focal velocities that were closer to energetic optima than MA and NA ones. They also had greater foraging rates and were less solitary than less aggressive fish, but these differences only were significant at the P=0·066 and P=0·081 level, respectively. Finally, HA fish performed significantly more aggressive acts and feedings backwards than other individuals. Despite these differences, the effects of intraspecific aggression in rosyside dace appeared less substantial than those that have been observed in stream salmonids. 2001 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles

show abstract

Foraging in groups of water striders (Gerris remigis): effects of variability in prey arrivals and handling times

Cited by 26 publications

References 23 publications

The Causes of Resource Monopolization: Interaction Between Resource Dispersion and Mode of Competition

The Causes of Resource Monopolization: Interaction Between Resource Dispersion and Mode of Competition

Whether or not to defend? The influence of resource distribution

Intraspecific aggression in rosyside dace, a drift‐feeding stream cyprinid

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About