Standard

Variation in habitat choice and delayed reproduction: Adaptive queuing strategies or individual quality differences? / Van de Pol, M.; Pen, I.; Heg, D.; Weissing, F.J.

In: American Naturalist, Vol. 170, No. 4, 2007, p. 530-541.

Research output: Contribution to journal/periodicalArticleScientificpeer-review

Harvard

Van de Pol, M, Pen, I, Heg, D & Weissing, FJ 2007, 'Variation in habitat choice and delayed reproduction: Adaptive queuing strategies or individual quality differences?' American Naturalist, vol. 170, no. 4, pp. 530-541. DOI: 10.1086/521237

APA

Vancouver

Author

Van de Pol, M. ; Pen, I. ; Heg, D. ; Weissing, F.J./ Variation in habitat choice and delayed reproduction: Adaptive queuing strategies or individual quality differences?. In: American Naturalist. 2007 ; Vol. 170, No. 4. pp. 530-541

BibTeX

@article{6e5d7d2879bc4f01972d1c51e4ea2377,
title = "Variation in habitat choice and delayed reproduction: Adaptive queuing strategies or individual quality differences?",
abstract = "In most species, some individuals delay reproduction or occupy inferior breeding positions. The queue hypothesis tries to explain both patterns by proposing that individuals strategically delay breeding (queue) to acquire better breeding or social positions. In 1995, Ens, Weissing, and Drent addressed evolutionarily stable queuing strategies in situations with habitat heterogeneity. However, their model did not consider the non - mutually exclusive individual quality hypothesis, which suggests that some individuals delay breeding or occupy inferior breeding positions because they are poor competitors. Here we extend their model with individual differences in competitive abilities, which are probably plentiful in nature. We show that including even the smallest competitive asymmetries will result in individuals using queuing strategies completely different from those in models that assume equal competitors. Subsequently, we investigate how well our models can explain settleme! nt patterns in the wild, using a long-term study on oystercatchers. This long-lived shorebird exhibits strong variation in age of first reproduction and territory quality. We show that only models that include competitive asymmetries can explain why oystercatchers' settlement patterns depend on natal origin. We conclude that predictions from queuing models are very sensitive to assumptions about competitive asymmetries, while detecting such differences in the wild is often problematic.",
author = "{Van de Pol}, M. and I. Pen and D. Heg and F.J. Weissing",
note = "Reporting year: 2007 Metis note: 4184;CTE; Dutch Ringing Scheme; file:///C:/pdfs/Pdfs2007/VandePol_ea_4184.pdf",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1086/521237",
language = "English",
volume = "170",
pages = "530--541",
journal = "American Naturalist",
issn = "0003-0147",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in habitat choice and delayed reproduction: Adaptive queuing strategies or individual quality differences?

AU - Van de Pol,M.

AU - Pen,I.

AU - Heg,D.

AU - Weissing,F.J.

N1 - Reporting year: 2007 Metis note: 4184;CTE; Dutch Ringing Scheme; file:///C:/pdfs/Pdfs2007/VandePol_ea_4184.pdf

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - In most species, some individuals delay reproduction or occupy inferior breeding positions. The queue hypothesis tries to explain both patterns by proposing that individuals strategically delay breeding (queue) to acquire better breeding or social positions. In 1995, Ens, Weissing, and Drent addressed evolutionarily stable queuing strategies in situations with habitat heterogeneity. However, their model did not consider the non - mutually exclusive individual quality hypothesis, which suggests that some individuals delay breeding or occupy inferior breeding positions because they are poor competitors. Here we extend their model with individual differences in competitive abilities, which are probably plentiful in nature. We show that including even the smallest competitive asymmetries will result in individuals using queuing strategies completely different from those in models that assume equal competitors. Subsequently, we investigate how well our models can explain settleme! nt patterns in the wild, using a long-term study on oystercatchers. This long-lived shorebird exhibits strong variation in age of first reproduction and territory quality. We show that only models that include competitive asymmetries can explain why oystercatchers' settlement patterns depend on natal origin. We conclude that predictions from queuing models are very sensitive to assumptions about competitive asymmetries, while detecting such differences in the wild is often problematic.

AB - In most species, some individuals delay reproduction or occupy inferior breeding positions. The queue hypothesis tries to explain both patterns by proposing that individuals strategically delay breeding (queue) to acquire better breeding or social positions. In 1995, Ens, Weissing, and Drent addressed evolutionarily stable queuing strategies in situations with habitat heterogeneity. However, their model did not consider the non - mutually exclusive individual quality hypothesis, which suggests that some individuals delay breeding or occupy inferior breeding positions because they are poor competitors. Here we extend their model with individual differences in competitive abilities, which are probably plentiful in nature. We show that including even the smallest competitive asymmetries will result in individuals using queuing strategies completely different from those in models that assume equal competitors. Subsequently, we investigate how well our models can explain settleme! nt patterns in the wild, using a long-term study on oystercatchers. This long-lived shorebird exhibits strong variation in age of first reproduction and territory quality. We show that only models that include competitive asymmetries can explain why oystercatchers' settlement patterns depend on natal origin. We conclude that predictions from queuing models are very sensitive to assumptions about competitive asymmetries, while detecting such differences in the wild is often problematic.

U2 - 10.1086/521237

DO - 10.1086/521237

M3 - Article

VL - 170

SP - 530

EP - 541

JO - American Naturalist

T2 - American Naturalist

JF - American Naturalist

SN - 0003-0147

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 72935