Species-specific foraging strategies influence the dominance between Common Ringed Plovers and Dunlins at stop-over sites
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Nathan Sheeran in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Włodzimierz Meissner in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Agnieszka Ożarowska in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Marta Witkowska in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Jonasz Pakizer in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Adéla Kosinová in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Many bird species feed in flocks at the stop-over sites during the seasonal migration. The hierarchical organisation of single- and mixed-flocks results from the interactions occurring between individuals. We conducted an indoor experiment to study the interspecific dominance pattern among two species of migrating waders, common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) and dunlin (Calidris alpina), when confronted with a single limited food source via 1 versus 1 trials for access to that food when in close spacing with each other. When analysing interspecific differences, we found common ringed plovers being clearly dominant over dunlins. At the individual level, all common ringed plovers occupied the top four positions within the dominance hierarchy of an experimental mixed-species wader flock consisting of 4 common ringed plovers and 9 dunlins. We suggest that this difference may be related to species-specific foraging strategies: common ringed plovers are visual foragers that prefer greater spacing from conspecifics and heterospecifics, whereas dunlins employ a tactile foraging method that may allow for closer proximity.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Aispuro, A.A., Canoine, V., Illa, M., Fusani, L. & Maggini, I. (2023). Stopover territoriality in songbirds crossing the Sahara: aggression and energetics during migration. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 77: 57. DOI:10.1007/s00265-023-03336-4.
-
Amici, F., Caicoya, A.L., Majolo, B. & Widdig, A. (2020). Innovation in wild Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). — Sci. Rep. 10: 4597. DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-61558-2.
-
Angarita-Báez, J.A. & Carlos, C.J. (2023). Foraging behavior of migratory shorebirds during non-breeding periods in the Americas: a review. — Ornithol. Res. 31: 141-151. DOI:10.1007/s43388-023-00125-5.
-
Banks, E.M., Wood-Gush, D.G.M., Hughes, B.O. & Mankovich, N.J. (1979). Social rank and priority of access to resources in domestic fowl. — Behav. Process. 4: 197-209. DOI:10.1016/0376-6357(79)90001-9.
-
Beauchamp, G. (2005). Does group foraging promote efficient exploitation of resources? — Oikos 11: 403-407. DOI:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.14136.x.
-
Beauchamp, G. (2022). Flocking in birds is associated with diet, foraging substrate, timing of activity, and life history. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 76: 74. DOI:10.1007/s00265-022-03183-9.
-
Bijleveld, B., Folmer, E.O. & Piersma, T. (2012). Experimental evidence for cryptic interference among socially foraging shorebirds. — Behav. Ecol. 23: 806-814. DOI:10.1093/beheco/ars034.
-
Burger, J., Howe, M.A., Hahn, D.C. & Chase, J. (1979). Aggressive interactions in mixed-species flocks of migrating shorebirds. — Anim. Behav. 27: 459-469. DOI:10.1016/0003-3472(79)90183-0.
-
Burger, J., Carlucci, S.A., Jeitner, C.W. & Niles, L. (2007). Habitat choice, disturbance, and management of foraging shorebirds and gulls at a migratory stopover. — Coastal Res. 23: 1159-1166. DOI:10.2112/04-0393.1.
-
Busse, P. & Meissner, W. (2015). Bird ringing station manual. — De Gruyter Open, Warsaw. DOI:10.2468/9788376560533.
-
Cerezo-Araujo, M., Alves, J.A., Hallgrimsson, G.T., Thórisson, B., Gunnarsson, T.G. & Méndez, V. (2025). Serenade of a whimbrel: understanding the function of display behavior in a sub-Arctic territorial wader. — J. Avian Biol. 1: e03324. DOI:10.1111/jav.03324.
-
Cestari, C. (2011). Foraging behavior of Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica (Charadriiformes, Scolopacidae) in human-disturbed and undisturbed occasions in the Atlantic coast of Brazil. — Rev. Bras. Ornitol. 19: 535-538.
-
Chase, I.D. (1974). Models of hierarchy formation in animal societies. — Behav. Sci. 19: 374-382. DOI:10.1002/bs.3830190604.
-
Cramp, S. & Simmons, K.E.L. (1983). The birds of the Western Palearctic, volume 3. — Oxford University Press, Oxford.
-
Creswell, W. & Quinn, J.L. (2011). Predicting the optimal prey group size from predator hunting behaviour. — J. Anim. Ecol. 80: 310-319. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01775.x.
-
Dann, P. (1991). Breeding territories, nesting and the timing of breeding of the Double-banded Plover Charadrius bicinctus. — Corella 15: 13-18.
-
Dit Durell, S.E.A.L.V. (2007). Individual feeding specialisation in shorebirds: population consequences and conservation implications. — Biol. Rev. 75: 503-518. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2000.tb00053.x.
-
Duijns, S., van Gils, J.A., Smart, J. & Piersma, T. (2015). Phenotype-limited distributions: short-billed birds move away during times that prey bury deeply. — Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 2: 150073. DOI:10.1098/rsos.150073.
-
Fernández, G. & Lank, D.B. (2008). Foraging behaviour of non-breeding Western Sandpipers Calidris mauri as a function of sex, habitat and flocking. — Ibis 150: 518-526. DOI:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00812.x.
-
Fretwell, S.D. & Lucas Jr, H.L. (1970). On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution of birds. 1. Theoretical development. — Acta Biotheor. 19: 16-36. DOI:10.1007/BF01601953.
-
Gavrilov, G. (2015). Advantages and disadvantages of interspecies associations of migratory northern sandpipers (Charadrii, Aves). — Biol. Bull. Rev. 5: 63-70. DOI:10.1134/S207908641501003X.
-
Goede, A.A. & Nieboer, E. (1983). Weight variation of Dunlins Calidris alpina during post-nuptial moult, after application of weight data transformations. — Bird Stud. 30: 157-163. DOI:10.1080/00063658309476791.
-
Goss-Custard, J.D. (1970). The responses of Redshank (Tringa totanus (L.) to spatial variations in the density of their prey. — J. Anim. Ecol. 39: 91-113. DOI:10.2307/2891.
-
Goss-Custard, J.D. (1976). Variation in the dispersion of Redshank, Tringa totanus, on their winter feeding grounds. — Ibis 118: 257-263. DOI:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1976.tb03073.x.
-
Goss-Custard, J.D. (1980). Competition for food and interference among waders. — Ardea 55: 31-52. DOI:10.5253/arde.v68.p31.
-
Goss-Custard, J.D., Caldow, R.W.G. & Clarke, R.T. (1992). Correlates of the density of foraging oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus at different population sizes. — J. Anim. Ecol. 61: 159-173. DOI:10.2307/5519.
-
Grether, G.F. & Okamtot, K.W. (2022). Eco-evolutionary dynamics of interference competition. — Ecol. Lett. 25: 2167-2176. DOI:10.1111/ele.14091.
-
Hammer, Ø., Harper, A.T. & Ryan, P.D. (2001). Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. — Palaeontol. Electron. 4: 1-9.
-
Harris, M.R. & Siefferman, L. (2014). Interspecific competition influences fitness benefits of assortative mating for territorial aggression in Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis). — PLoS ONE 9: e88668. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0088668.
-
Hedenström, A. & Alerstam, T. (1995). Optimal flight speeds of birds. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 348: 471-487. DOI:10.1098/rstb.1995.0082.
-
Holmgren, N. & Lundberg, S. (1993). Despotic behaviour and the evolution of migration patterns in birds. — Ornis Scand. 24: 103-109. DOI:10.2307/3676359.
-
Huntingford, F.A. & Turner, A.K. (1987). Animal conflict. Chapman and Hall Animal Behaviour Series. — Springer, Dordrecht. DOI:10.1007/978-94-009-3145-9.
-
Komers, P.E. (1989). Dominance relationships between juvenile and adult black-billed magpies. — Anim. Behav. 37: 256-265. DOI:10.1016/0003-3472(89)90114-0.
-
Kozik, R., Meissner, W., Listewnik, B., Nowicki, J. & Lasecki, R. (2022). Differences in foraging behaviour of a migrating shorebird at stopover sites on regulated and unregulated sections of a large European lowland river. — J. Ornithol. 163: 791-802. DOI:10.1007/s10336-022-01984-3.
-
Laursen, K. & Møller, A.P. (2021). Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species. — PLoS ONE 16: e0248615. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0248615.
-
Lourenço, P.M., Mandema, F.S., Hooijmeijer, C.E.W., Granadeiro, J.P. & Piersma, T. (2010). Group foraging effects on resource acquisition in shorebirds. — J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 522-528. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01654.x.
-
Lovette, I.J. & Fitzpatrick, J.W. (2016). The Cornell Lab of Ornithology handbook of bird biology. — Wiley, Chichester.
-
MacDonald, E.C., Frost, E.H., MacNeil, S.M., Hamilton, D.J. & Barbeau, M.A. (2014). Behavioral response of Corophium volutator to shorebird predation in the Upper Bay of Fundy, Canada. — PLoS ONE 9: e110633. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110633.
-
Mangini, G.G., Gandoy, F.A., Areta, J.I. & Blendinger, P.G. (2022). Benefits of foraging in mixed-species flocks depend on species role and foraging strategy. — Ibis 165: 629-646. DOI:10.1111/ibi.13162.
-
Masero, J.A., Estrella, S.M. & Sánchez-Guzmán, J.M. (2007). Behavioural plasticity in foraging mode of typical plovers. — Ardea 95: 259-265. DOI:10.5253/078.095.0208.
-
Meissner, W. (1998). Fat reserves in Dunlins Calidris alpina during autumn migration through Gulf of Gdansk. — Ornis Svec. 78: 221-236. DOI:10.34080/os.v8.22949.
-
Meissner, W. (2009). A classification scheme for scoring subcutaneous fat depots of shorebirds. — J. Field Ornithol. 80: 289-296. DOI:10.1111/j.1557-9263.2009.00232.x.
-
Meissner, W., Kozik, R., Listewnik, B., Nowicki, J. & Lasecki, R. (2023). The effects of river regulation on diet diversity, dietary niche overlap and foraging habitat preferences of two sympatric plover species. — Acta Oecol. 119: 103915. DOI:10.1016/j.actao.2023.103915.
-
Metcalfe, N.B. & Furness, R.W. (1987). Aggression in shorebirds in relation to flock density and composition. — Ibis 129: 553-563. DOI:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1987.tb08243.x.
-
Nehls, G. & Tiedemann, R. (1993). What determines the densities of feeding birds on tidal flats? A case study on dunlin, Calidris alpina, in the Wadden Sea. — Neth. J. Sea Res. 31: 375-384. DOI:10.1016/0077-7579(93)90054-V.
-
Newton, I. (2006). Can conditions experienced during migration limit the population levels of birds? — J. Ornithol. 147: 146-166. DOI:10.1007/s10336-006-0058-4.
-
Nicol, C.J., Gregory, N.G., Knowles, T.G., Parkman, I.D. & Wilkins, L.J. (1999). Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65: 137-152. DOI:10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00057-X.
-
Nightingale, J., Gill, J.A., Gunnarsson, T.G. & Alves, J.A. (2026). Learning on the fly: rapid development of juvenile shorebirds’ foraging abilities across a migratory range. — Anim. Behav. 233: 123462. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2025.123462.
-
Nol, E., MacCulloch, K., Pollock, L. & McKinnon, L. (2014). Foraging ecology and time budgets of non-breeding shorebirds in coastal Cuba. — J. Trop. Ecol. 30: 347-357. DOI:10.1017/S0266467414000182.
-
Novcic, I. & Beauchamp, G. (2018). Effect of foraging density on feeding rates in spring staging semipalmated sandpipers using different foraging modes. — Can. J. Zool. 96: 996-1001. DOI:10.1139/cjz-2017-0238.
-
Novcic, I. (2018). Aggression in flocks of foraging shorebirds during spring stopover at Delaware Bay, USA. — Waterbirds 41: 73-79. DOI:10.1675/063.041.0110.
-
O’Reilly, K.M. & Wingfield, J.C. (1995). Spring and autumn migration in Arctic shorebirds: same distance, different strategies. — Integr. Comp. Biol. 35: 223-233. DOI:10.1093/icb/35.3.222.
-
Palmyre, H.B., Gallego-Abenza, M., Massen, J.J.M. & Bugnyar, T. (2022). Dominance in a socially dynamic setting: hierarchical structure and conflict dynamics in ravens’ foraging groups. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 337: 20200446. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2020.0446.
-
Pienkowski, M.W. (1983). Changes in the foraging pattern of plovers in relation to environmental factors. — Anim. Behav. 31: 244-264. DOI:10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80195-X.
-
Piersma, T. & van Brederode, N.E. (1990). The estimation of fat reserves in coastal waders before their departure from northwest Africa in spring. — Ardea 78: 221-236.
-
Piersma, T. & van Gils, J.A. (2011). The flexible phenotype: a body-centred integration of ecology, physiology, and behaviour. — Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.06.012.
-
Piersma, T., Zwarts, L. & Bruggemann, H. (1990). Behavioural aspects of departure of waders before long-distance flights: flocking, vocalizations, flight paths and diurnal timing. — Ardea 78: 157-184.
-
Pigot, A.L., Sheard, C., Miller, E.T., Bregman, T.P., Freeman, B.G., Roll, U., Seddon, N., Trisos, C.H., Weeks, B.C. & Tobias, J.A. (2020). Macroevolutionary convergence connects morphological form to ecological function in birds. — Nature Ecol. Evol. 4: 230-239. DOI:10.1038/s41559-019-1070-4.
-
Poisbleau, M., Fritz, H., Guillon, N. & Chastel, O. (2005). Linear social dominance hierarchy and corticosterone responses in male mallards and pintails. — Horm. Behav. 47: 485-492. DOI:10.1016/J.YHBEH.2005.01.001.
-
Poisbleau, M., Jenouvrier, S. & Fritz, H. (2006). Assessing the reliability of dominance scores for assigning individual ranks in a hierarchy. — Anim. Behav. 72: 835-842. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.01.024.
-
R Core Team (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. — R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available at https://www.R-project.org/.
-
Rands, S.A., Pettifor, R.A., Rowcliffe, J.M. & Cowlishaw, G. (2006). Social foraging and dominance relationships: the effects of socially mediated interference. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60: 572-581. DOI:10.1007/s00265-006-0202-4.
-
Rose, P. & Soole, L. (2020). What influences aggression and foraging activity in social birds? Measuring individual, group and environmental characteristics. — Ethology 126: 900-913. DOI:10.1111/eth.13067.
-
Rutten, A.L., Oosterbeek, K., van der Meer, J., Verhulst, S. & Ens, B.J. (2010). Experimental evidence for interference competition in oystercatchers, Haematopus ostralegus. I. Captive birds. — Behav. Ecol. 21: 1251-1260. DOI:10.1093/beheco/arq129.
-
Sánchez-Tójar, A., Schroeder, J. & Farine, D.R. (2017). A practical guide for inferring reliable dominance hierarchies and estimating their uncertainty. — J. Anim. Ecol. 87: 594-608. DOI:10.1111/1365-2656.12776.
-
Sansom, A., Creswell, W., Minderman, J. & Lind, J. (2008). Vigilance benefits and competition costs in groups: do individual redshanks gain an overall foraging benefit? — Anim. Behav. 75: 1869-1875. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.11.005.
-
Sasaki, T., Mann, R.P., Warren, K.N., Herbert, T., Wilson, T. & Biro, D. (2018). Personality and the collective: bold homing pigeons occupy higher leadership ranks in flocks. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 373: 20170038. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2017.0038.
-
Sheppard, J.K., Walenski, M., Wallace, M.P., Velazco, J.J.V., Porras, C. & Swaisgood, R.R. (2013). Hierarchical dominance structure in reintroduced California condors: correlates, consequences, and dynamics. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67: 1227-1238. DOI:10.1007/s00265-013-1550-5.
-
Slagsvold, T. & Wiebe, K.L. (2011). Social learning in birds and its role in shaping a foraging niche. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 366: 969-977. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2010.0343.
-
Sridhar, H., Beauchamp, G. & Shanker, K. (2009). Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis. — Anim. Behav. 78: 337-347. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.008.
-
Stahl, J., Tolsma, P.H., Loonen, M.J.J.E. & Drent, R.H. (2001). Subordinates explore but dominants profit: resource competition in high Arctic barnacle goose flocks. — Anim. Behav. 61: 257-264. DOI:10.1006/ANBE.2000.1564.
-
Stawarczyk, M. (1984). Aggression and its suppression in mixed-species wader flocks. — Ornis Scand. 15: 23-37. DOI:10.2307/3675999.
-
Stillman, R.A., Caldow, R.W.G., Goss-Custard, J.D. & Alexander, M.J. (2001a). Individual variation in intake rate: the relative importance of foraging efficiency and dominance. — J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 484-493. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00410.x.
-
Stillman, R.A., Goss-Custard, J.D., West, A.D., Dit Durellt, S.E.A.L.V., Caldowt, R.W.G., McGrortyt, S. & Clarket, R.T. (2000b). Predicting mortality in novel environments: tests and sensitivity of a behaviour-based model. — J. Appl. Ecol. 37: 564-588. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00506.x.
-
Stolen, E.D., Collazo, J.A. & Percival, F. (2012). Group-foraging effects on capture rate in wading birds. — Condor 4: 744-754. DOI:10.1525/cond.2012.110159.
-
Tibbets, E.A., Pardo-Sanchez, J. & Weise, C. (2022). The establishment and maintenance of dominance hierarchies. — Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 377: 20200450. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2020.0450.
-
Triplet, P., Stillmam, R.A. & Goss-Custard, J.D. (2001). Prey abundance and the strength of interference in a foraging shorebird. — J. Anim. Ecol. 68: 254-265. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00280.x.
-
Vahl, W.K. & Kingma, S.A. (2007). Food divisibility and interference competition among captive ruddy turnstones, Arenaria interpres. — Anim. Behav. 74: 1391-1401. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.01.006.
-
Vahl, W.K., van der Meer, J., Weissing, F.J., van Dullemen, D. & Piersma, T. (2005). The mechanisms of interference competition: two experiments on foraging waders. — Behav. Ecol. 16: 845-855. DOI:10.1093/beheco/ari073.
-
van de Kam, J., Ens, B., Piersma, T. & Zwarts, L. (2004). Shorebirds: an illustrated behavioural ecology. — KNNV Publishing, Utrecht. DOI:10.1163/9789004277991.
-
Van den Hout, P.J., Spaans, B. & Piersma, T. (2008). Differential mortality of wintering shorebirds on the Banc d’Arguin, Mauritania, due to predation by large falcons. — Ibis 150: 219-230. DOI:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00785.x.
-
Wallander, J. (2003). Sex roles during incubation in the Common Ringed Plover. — Condor 105: 378-381. DOI:10.1093/condor/105.2.378.
-
Weeks, B.C., Naeem, S., Winger, B.M. & Cracraft, J. (2020). The relationship between morphology and behavior in mixed-species flocks of island birds. — Ecol. Evol. 10: 10593-10606. DOI:10.1002/ece3.6714.
-
Whitfield, D.P. (1986). Plumage variability and territoriality in breeding turnstone Arenaria interpres: status signalling or individual recognition? — Anim. Behav. 34: 1471-1482. DOI:10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80218.
-
Włodarczyk, R., Minias, P., Kaczmarek, K., Janiszewsski, T. & Kleszcz, A. (2007). Different migration strategies used by two inland wader species during autumn migration: case of Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) and Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago). — Ornis Fenn. 84: 119-130.
-
Wood, K.A., Ham, P., Scales, J., Wyeth, E. & Rose, P.E. (2020). Aggressive behavioural interactions between swans (Cygnus spp.) and other waterbirds during winter: a webcam-based study. — Avian Res. 11: 30. DOI:10.1186/s40657-020-00216-7.
-
Wood, K.A., Ponting, J., D’Costa, N., Newth, J.L., Rose, P.E., Glazov, P. & Rees, E.C. (2017). Understanding intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of aggressive behaviour in waterbird assemblages: a meta-analysis. — Anim. Behav. 126: 209-216. DOI:10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.02.008.
-
Yates, M.B., Stillman, R.A. & Goss-Custard, J.D. (2001). Contrasting interference functions and foraging dispersion in two species of shorebird (Charadrii). — J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 314-322.
-
Zar, J.H. (2010). Biostatistical analysis. — Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
-
Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Xu, W., Zhang, M. & Li, J. (2023). Morphological characteristics influence spatial mixing patterns of shorebirds at Shengjin Lake. — Avian Res. 14: 100087. DOI:10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100087.
-
Zwarts, L. & Drent, R. (1981). Prey depletion and the regulation of predator density: oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus) feeding on mussels (Mytilus edulis). — Mar. Sci. Ser. 15: 193-216.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 186 | 186 | 29 |
| Full Text Views | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 20 | 20 | 7 |
Species-specific foraging strategies influence the dominance between Common Ringed Plovers and Dunlins at stop-over sites
In: BehaviourSearch for other papers by Nathan Sheeran in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Włodzimierz Meissner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Agnieszka Ożarowska in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marta Witkowska in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jonasz Pakizer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Adéla Kosinová in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Many bird species feed in flocks at the stop-over sites during the seasonal migration. The hierarchical organisation of single- and mixed-flocks results from the interactions occurring between individuals. We conducted an indoor experiment to study the interspecific dominance pattern among two species of migrating waders, common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) and dunlin (Calidris alpina), when confronted with a single limited food source via 1 versus 1 trials for access to that food when in close spacing with each other. When analysing interspecific differences, we found common ringed plovers being clearly dominant over dunlins. At the individual level, all common ringed plovers occupied the top four positions within the dominance hierarchy of an experimental mixed-species wader flock consisting of 4 common ringed plovers and 9 dunlins. We suggest that this difference may be related to species-specific foraging strategies: common ringed plovers are visual foragers that prefer greater spacing from conspecifics and heterospecifics, whereas dunlins employ a tactile foraging method that may allow for closer proximity.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 186 | 186 | 29 |
| Full Text Views | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 20 | 20 | 7 |
