Foraging-Predation Risk Trade-Offs, Habitat Selection, and the Coexistence of Competitors

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Previous articleNext article No AccessNotes and CommentsForaging‐Predation Risk Trade‐offs, Habitat Selection, and the Coexistence of CompetitorsTamara C. Grand and Associate Editor: Robert D. HoltTamara C. GrandDepartment of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada*Address for correspondence: 108 Roe Drive, Port Moody, British Columbia V3H 3M8, Canada; e‐mail: [email protected]. Search for more articles by this author and Associate Editor: Robert D. Holt Search for more articles by this author Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, CanadaPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 159, Number 1January 2002 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/324124 Views: 110Total views on this site Citations: 10Citations are reported from Crossref HistoryReceived April 28, 2000Accepted July 15, 2001 Keywordshabitat selectionpredation risktrade‐offsunequal competitorscoexistenceideal free distribution theory© 2002 by The University of Chicago.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:C. Michael Wagner, Gary D. Grossman Input matching and patch use by native and invasive minnows, Ecology of Freshwater Fish 22, no.11 (Aug 2012): 55–65.https://doi.org/10.1111/eff.12001Kara J. Cromwell, Brian P. Kennedy Diel distribution, behaviour and consumption of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in a Wilderness stream, Ecology of Freshwater Fish 20, no.33 (Jun 2011): 421–430.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2011.00512.xVlastimil Křivan, Ross Cressman, Candace Schneider The ideal free distribution: A review and synthesis of the game-theoretic perspective, Theoretical Population Biology 73, no.33 (May 2008): 403–425.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2007.12.009Karl M. Polivka Use of Techniques from Foraging Theory to Quantify the Cost of Predation for Benthic Fishes, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136, no.66 (Jan 2011): 1778–1790.https://doi.org/10.1577/T06-026.1Yeen Ten Hwang, Serge Larivière, François Messier Local- and landscape-level den selection of striped skunks on the Canadian prairies, Canadian Journal of Zoology 85, no.11 (Jan 2007): 33–39.https://doi.org/10.1139/z06-192Karl M Polivka Resource matching across habitats is limited by competition at patch scales in an estuarine-opportunist fish, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62, no.44 (Apr 2005): 913–924.https://doi.org/10.1139/f04-235Michael P. Speed, Graeme D. Ruxton Aposematism: what should our starting point be?, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272, no.15611561 (Feb 2005): 431–438.https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2968 Ross Cressman , Vlastimil Křivan , and József Garay Ideal Free Distributions, Evolutionary Games, and Population Dynamics in Multiple‐Species Environments. R. Cressman et al., The American Naturalist 164, no.44 (Jul 2015): 473–489.https://doi.org/10.1086/423827Vlastimil Křivan Ideal free distributions when resources undergo population dynamics, Theoretical Population Biology 64, no.11 (Aug 2003): 25–38.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-5809(03)00065-0Douglas W. Morris Shadows of predation: habitat-selecting consumers eclipse competition between coexisting prey, Evolutionary Ecology 17, no.44 (Jul 2003): 393–422.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027304601301