Living in a Ghetto Within a Local Population: An Empirical Example of an Ideal Despotic Distribution

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

Investigating area-sensitivity in shrubland birds: Responses to patch size in a forested landscape

“…Ideal despotic distribution, in which habitat selection by subordinate individuals is constrained by territoriality of dominant individuals (Brown, 1969), is predicted to result in subordinates being forced into lower quality habitat. Lower quality habitat in this case would be expected to have lower metrics of breeding success (Oro, 2008). Based on our field work in the study area, we do not believe that populations were sufficient to allow for complete occupation of shrubland habitats, as we regularly encountered regenerating clearcuts that were unoccupied or sparsely settled by one or more of our focal shrubland species.…”

The role of landmarks in territory maintenance by the black saddlebags dragonfly, Tramea lacerata

“…When territorial behavior begins to restrict certain individuals from gaining access to particular areas, variations of the IFD develop, such as the ideal despotic distribution in which dominant individuals prevent subordinates from choosing the best habitat (Harper 1982). For example in yellow-legged gulls (Larus michahellis) younger subordinate individuals were found almost exclusively in a poor patch of habitat and prevented from breeding by dominant individuals (Oro 2008). Organisms may switch distributions depending on the predictability of the environment.…”

Comparing demographic parameters for philopatric and immigrant individuals in a long-lived bird adapted to unstable habitats

“…The oldest philopatrics would disperse to other breeding patches at higher rates after their first reproductive attempts at the natal site (see also Serrano et al 2003;Dittmann et al 2005). Furthermore, the striking differences in resighting probability could not be explained by higher skipping of reproduction in immigrants (this is a rare behaviour in Audouin's gulls; see Oro 1998), but rather suggested some type of despotic behaviour of philopatrics against immigrants (Oro 2008), or once again a stronger tendency among the latter to be absent from the study colony due to breeding alternatively in other colonies (Table 1; see also Tavecchia et al 2007). Nevertheless, and despite the abovementioned differences in site-tenacity and dispersal, philopatric and immigrant Audouin's gulls shared most of the demographic parameters.…”