We have been talking about animals that hold territories, but lets look at how animals choose to disperse themselves based on species that do NOT hold territories.
If one assumes that all animals have equal competitive ability and do not exhibit territoriality, one would expect animals to disperse through the environment, proportional to the resources there.
I mentioned earlier the concept of the Ideal Free Distribution--
This is a pretty simple idea that has the potential to explain how animals allocate themselves in the environment---
You can watch humans attempting to approximate the ideal free distribution every time you:
Get in line at the grocery store
Change lanes during a traffic jam
Fill up an auditorium you have never entered before (we discussed behaviors when entering rooms that you HAVE visited before)
Rush the buffet table
Asked to choose partners during the 5th grade gym class Square-dancing unit.
Ideal Free Distribution
(Fretwell and Lucas, 1970)
Animals live in areas where its gain will be the highest
Assumptions:
Predictions:
All competitors experience equal gains, whatever area they occupy (equal average pay-offs)
Average gain rates are equal in all areas
Do any animals behave this way?
Yes show overhead
Most violate the basic assumptions however-particularly with respect to competitive ability.
Behavioral ecologists have since modified their models to account for differences. They have found that the distribution is such that the sum total of competitive abilities of individuals should be equal and proportional to the payoff for being in a particular area.
Remember the distribution of C is the only one that conforms to predictions of the ideal free distribution with respect to competitive abilities. That means that this distribution must occur in nature much more frequently than other types of distributions.
Name individual fish: number of combinations whereby each could occur:
Distribution A: 1 way
Distribution B: 90 ways
Distribution D: 20 ways
Distribution C: 225 ways
Payoffs A good side/bad side: 2:1
Payoffs B: 1.714: 1.2
Payoffs C: 1.5: 1.5
Payoffs D: 1.33:2
The opposite of an ideal free distribution is a despotic distribution (or guarding resources). Animals may distribute themselves as best they can. If some individuals have a higher competitive ability, they do better if they keep resources from other individuals and force them elsewhere.
What is a territory versus a home range?
In other cases, animals might (instead of defending a food resource) defend a particular area. To review:
--A home range is the area an animal spends most of its time.
--The area within a home range that gets the heaviest use is the core area.
--Home ranges are not defended, and those of adjacent animals may overlap.
--A territory is an area occupied more or less exclusively by an animal or group, and is defended by overt aggression or advertisement.
--There is lots of variation across species in whether they defend a territory. Many species only defend a territory for part of the year.
Territories may be held for many different reasons.
--Some territories, such as birds on winter feeding grounds, are just for feeding.
--Other territories, such as leks, are just for mating.
--All-purpose territories are used for feeding, breeding, raising young.
Territories are costly to hold.
--The boundaries have to be patrolled, and intruders have to be dealt with, either by displays or by fights.
Holding a territory also provides benefits. These might include:
--a longer-lasting food supply that is shared with fewer individuals
--increased access to mates
--better conditions for offspring
--familiarity with the territory. There is some evidence that animals practice escape routes; knowing the area is helpful in escaping predators.
Territories should only be held when they are economically defendable.
--The benefits of holding a territory should be outweighed by the costs.
Factors that influence the economic defendability of a territory:
1. Is there competition for the resource?
-- If no one else wants the resource, it is not necessary to defend a territory.
--If competitors are really numerous, it may not be possible to exclude others--you would spend all your time fighting.
2. How is the resource distributed in space?
--The easiest resource to defend is clumped. If resources are spread out over a large area, they are harder to defend.
--ex. Pygmy sunfish. When prey are clumped, they were territorial. When prey were dispersed, no territories.
--ex. great blue herons are not territorial when they feed in the intertidal. When they eat rodents, they are.
3. How is the resource distributed in time?
--Predictably occurring patches are easier to defend.
Let’s look at a graphical picture of territoriality.
--In this example, we can think of the costs and benefits of maintaining a territory as being in units of energy.
--As territory size increases, the costs of defense increases. Why would this be so?
--It’s harder to patrol a larger boundary.
--There might be more intruders onto the territory.
DRAW COST/BENEFIT GRAPH
--As territory size increases, the benefits begin to level out.
--There is a limit to how much benefit an animal gets from a territory. Maybe that’s all it can eat, for example.
--Where will an animal that is trying to maximize its energy get the most benefits?
--At the widest point between the cost/benefit curves.
More examples of territorial systems
Territory size. Sunbirds defend winter feeding patches. They drink nectar from flowers.
--When nectar levels were very low, they abandoned their territories because they could not gain enough energy to balance the cost of defense.
--When nectar levels were very high, the cost of depletion of nectar was low, so intruders onto the territories were tolerated.
--The birds always defended around 1600 flowers, even though the area of the territory varied about 300 fold.
When should owners allow satellites onto their territories?
--Satellites are other individuals that are allowed to use a territory.
--Example: Pied wagtails are birds that feed along a river bank, eating insects that have washed up on shore. Birds take, on average, about 40 min to complete a circuit.
--When food resources are very high, the territory owner allowed a satellite to walk the territory too. This meant that the food available to the owner was reduced by one half, but the cost of territory defense against other birds was shared by the satellite.
SHOW OVERHEAD OF BUTTERFLY FIGHTS
What happens when territory owners are challenged?
--Often, the owner of the territory, the resident, wins.
--Speckled wood butterflies defend sunspots in the forest. When an intruder comes along, the butterflies "fight" by spiraling upward and beating their wings together. However, the resident almost always retains control of the sunspot, and the intruder continues on.
--Why might intruders win so often?
Hypothesis 1: They are better fighters. This idea was introduced back in game theory: the idea of resource holding potential, or RHP. That might be how they got ownership in the first place!
Hypothesis 2: They have more to gain from a fight and are therefore prepared to fight harder. Territory owners might find the territory more valuable than intruders, because they already know the location of good feeding and nesting sites.
Hypothesis 3: Maybe this is an arbitrary rule that serves to decrease the costs of fighting for both parties.
--This might be what is going on in the butterflies. However, this isn’t the only thing, because when sunspots are rarer and therefore more valuable, the resident is more likely to lose than when sunspots are common.
More examples of territorial systems
Territory size. Sunbirds defend winter feeding patches. They eat nectar from flowers.
--When nectar levels were very low, they abandoned their territories because they could not gain enough energy to balance the cost of defense.
--When nectar levels were very high, the cost of depletion of nectar was low, so intruders onto the territories were tolerated.
--The birds always defended around 1600 flowers, even though the area of the territory varied about 300 fold.
When should owners allow satellites onto their territories?
--Satellites are other individuals that are allowed to use a territory.
--Example: Pied wagtails are birds that feed along a river bank, eating insects that have washed up on shore. Birds take, on average, about 40 min to complete a circuit.
--When food resources are very high, the territory owner allowed a satellite to walk the territory too. This meant that the food available to the owner was reduced by one half, but the cost of territory defense against other birds was shared by the satellite.
What happens when territory owners are challenged?
--Often, the owner of the territory, the resident, wins.
--Speckled wood butterflies defend sunspots in the forest. When an intruder comes along, the butterflies "fight" by spiraling upward and beating their wings together. However, the resident almost always retains control of the sunspot, and the intruder continues on.
--Why might residents win so often?
Hypothesis 1: They are better fighters. This idea was introduced back in game theory: the idea of resource holding potential, or RHP. That might be how they got ownership in the first place!
Hypothesis 2: They have more to gain from a fight and are therefore prepared to fight harder. Territory owners might find the territory more valuable than intruders, because they already know the location of good feeding and nesting sites.
Hypothesis 3: Maybe this is an arbitrary rule that serves to decrease the costs of fighting for both parties.
--This might be what is going on in the butterflies. However, this isn’t the only thing, because when sunspots are rarer and therefore more valuable, the resident is more likely to lose than when sunspots are common.
Why do Residents usually win?
(higher RHP)
about the territory's true value
the costs of fighting for both parties
Quiz 6
1. What are two primary functional explanations for why animals disperse?
2a. What is the ideal free distribution?
b. give an example
c. identify two of its assumptions.
3. Why do residents usually win during agonistic encounters?