Erratum: Food Production and Competitor Density as the Determinants of Feeding Territory Size

1980 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-461
1981 ◽  
Vol 59 (9) ◽  
pp. 1801-1809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence M. Dill ◽  
Ronald C. Ydenberg ◽  
Alex H. G. Fraser

Feeding territory size and potential food abundance were measured simultaneously in a field population of juvenile (40–50 mm) coho salmon. Territory size was inversely related to the density of benthic food on the territory, as predicted from an energy-based model of territoriality. The relationship between the abundance of drift food and territory size was in the predicted direction, but was not significant. Territories were also smaller where intruder pressure was higher, but intrusion rate and food abundance were not directly correlated. Therefore, the effect of food abundance on territory size was not caused indirectly by attraction of nonterritorial fish to areas where food was abundant. In the laboratory, the distance from which a resident coho attacked an approaching model intruder increased asymptotically with hunger. The fish therefore appear to possess an appropriate behavioural mechanism (tactic) to adjust territory size to local food abundance.


1983 ◽  
Vol 80 (23) ◽  
pp. 7259-7263 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. L. Carpenter ◽  
D. C. Paton ◽  
M. A. Hixon

1987 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. A. Grant ◽  
David L. G. Noakes

A simple model of optimal feeding-territory size is developed for drift-feeding fish by modifying Hixon's (M. A. Hixon. 1980. Am. Nat. 115: 510–530) model for energy maximizers. Our model predicts that territory size should vary directly with food density when the fish is subject to time constraints, and directly with intruder pressure when the fish is subject to processing constraints. These unique predictions arise because any food not immediately eaten is carried downstream out of the territory. Our model also predicts that territory size should vary inversely with intruder pressure when the fish is subject to time constraints, and inversely with food density when the fish is subject to processing constraints. The qualitative predictions of the model are not affected by changes in the shape of the cost or benefit curves, unlike other simple models. A review of studies of salmonid territory size indicates that most are inadequate tests of the model because (i) food was not presented in a natural manner, (ii) ration levels were not controlled at levels that were clearly above or below a maximum daily ration, and (iii) the confounding effects of intruder pressure were not controlled. Future experiments will have to incorporate these factors to distinguish between the competing predictions posed by this and previous models.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document