Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Ekman (1989)
Group size in dominance-structured populationsOrnis scandinavica, 20
B. Enoksson (1988)
Age- and sex-related differences in dominance and foraging behaviour of nuthatches Sitta europaeaAnimal Behaviour, 36
T. Whitham (1980)
The Theory of Habitat Selection: Examined and Extended Using Pemphigus AphidsThe American Naturalist, 115
Richard DiCarlo, Rebecca Frey, Stacey Holman, Richard Tejedor, Murtuza Ali (1974)
Introduction to biostatistics
T. Tregenza (1995)
Building on the Ideal Free DistributionAdvances in Ecological Research, 26
A. Talbot, D. Kramer (1986)
Effects of food and oxygen availability on habitat selection by guppies in a laboratory environmentCanadian Journal of Zoology, 64
A. Inman (1990)
Group foraging in starlings: distributions of unequal competitorsAnimal Behaviour, 40
D. Harper (1982)
Competitive foraging in mallards: “Ideal free’ ducksAnimal Behaviour, 30
K. Fausch (1984)
Profitable stream positions for salmonids: relating specific growth rate to net energy gainCanadian Journal of Zoology, 62
C. Lessells (1995)
Putting resource dynamics into continuous input ideal free distribution modelsAnimal Behaviour, 49
D. Gillis, D. Kramer (1987)
Ideal interference distributions: population density and patch use by zebrafishAnimal Behaviour, 35
1. Predictions from existing models on 'ideal free distribution of unequal competitors' were tested by comparing the intake rates of the birds in relation to their bowl preferences.2. Three types of distributions across two patches (1 and 2, where 1 provides higher food production rate than 2) were tested: truncated (H1> L1H2> L2), semi-truncated (H1> H2> L1L2), and mixed (H1H2> L1L2). Hiindicates highest individual intake rate in patch i, Liindicates lowest individual intake rate in patch i.3. The birds were studied in groups of six. They were fed by presenting two bowls containing mealworms, one bowl had twice the food-input rate of the other.4. Four birds visited the high-density bowl more often than the low-density bowl, whereas the other two birds showed no or opposite preferences.5. The semi-truncated distribution was the only distribution that could not be rejected by any criteria.6. When members of the experimental group were exchanged, the changes in individual intake rates suggest that the intake rate is related to each individual's quantitative competitive ability rather than to the individual's rank.
Behaviour – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1999
Keywords: IDEAL FREE DISTRIBUTION; FORAGING; COMPETITION
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.