Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-b5cpw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-17T08:38:35.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CROWDING AND ACTIVITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

A. J. Thomson  and
C. S. Holling
A. J. Thomson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
C. S. Holling
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When the relative velocity of flies is estimated from the frequency of contact of flies with a given area, the resulting picture of activity is misleading because of time-wasting activities arising from encounters between flies. Prediction of this encounter rate is greatly facilitated by the use of Lloyds (1967) index of crowding, which allows for the effects of the non-random distribution of the flies. Prediction of the number of contacts of flies with an inscribed area within the experimental container, was highly successful when the effects of the non-random locomotion of the flies was included in the model of activity.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 12 , December 1976 , pp. 1417 - 1426
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barton, Browne L. and Evans, D. R.. 1960. Locomotor activity of the blowfly as a function of feeding and starvation. J. Insect Physiol. 4: 27–37.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. S. and Rhoades, M. V.. 1954. Sugar preference-aversion functions for the blowfly. J. exp. Zool. 126: 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleschner, C. 1950. Studies of searching capacity of the larvae of three predators of the citrus red mite. Hilgardia 20: 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. W. 1964 a. The control of spontaneous locomotor activity in Phormia regina Meigen I. Locomotor activity patterns of intact flies. J. Insect Physiol. 10: 711–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. W. 1964 b. The control of spontaneous locomotor activity in Phormia regina Meigen. II. Experiments to determine the mechanism involved. J. Insect Physiol. 10: 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, D. L. and Sisojevic, P.. 1966. Predatory behaviour of Philodromus rufus Walckenaer (Araneae: Thomisidae). Can. Ent. 98: 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 48. 86 pp.Google Scholar
Laing, J. 1938. Host finding by insect parasites. II. The chance of Trichogramma evanescens finding its hosts. J. exp. Biol. 15: 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, M. 1967. “Mean crowding”. J. Anim. Ecol. 36: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosimann, J. E. 1958. The evolutionary significance of rare matings in animal populations. Evolution 12: 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skellam, J. G. 1958. The mathematical foundations underlying the use of line transects in animal ecology. Biometrics 14: 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 1932. A mathematical theory of the growth of populations of the flour beetle, Tribolium confusum Duv. Can. J. Res. 6: 632–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yapp, W. B. 1955. The theory of line transects. Bird Study 3: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar