J

John R. Krebs

University of Oxford

Publishes on Animal Behavior and Reproduction, Avian ecology and behavior, Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior. 222 papers and 19.6k citations.

222Publications
19.6kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Arms races between and within species
Richard Dawkins, John R. Krebs|Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences|1979
Cited by 2.2k

An adaptation in one lineage (e.g. predators) may change the selection pressure on another lineage (e.g. prey), giving rise to a counter-adaptation. If this occurs reciprocally, an unstable runaway escalation or 'arms race' may result. We discuss various factors which might give one side an advantage in an arms race. For example, a lineage under strong selection may out-evolve a weakly selected one (' the life-dinner principle'). We then classify arms races in two independent ways. They may be symmetric or asymmetric, and they may be interspecific or intraspecific. Our example of an asymmetric interspecific arms race is that between brood parasites and their hosts. The arms race concept may help to reduce the mystery of why cuckoo hosts are so good at detecting cuckoo eggs, but so bad at detecting cuckoo nestlings. The evolutionary contest between queen and worker ants over relative parental investment is a good example of an intraspecific asymmetric arms race. Such cases raise special problems because the participants share the same gene pool. Interspecific symmetric arms races are unlikely to be important, because competitors tend to diverge rather than escalate competitive adaptations. Intraspecific symmetric arms races, exemplified by adaptations for male-male competition, may underlie Cope's Rule and even the extinction of lineages. Finally we consider ways in which arms races can end. One lineage may drive the other to extinction; one may reach an optimum, thereby preventing the other from doing so; a particularly interesting possibility, exemplified by flower-bee coevolution, is that both sides may reach a mutual local optimum; lastly, arms races may have no stable and but may cycle continuously. We do not wish necessarily to suggest that all, or even most, evolutionary change results from arms races, but we do suggest that the arms race concept may help to resolve three long-standing questions in evolutionary theory.

Territory and Breeding Density in the Great Tit, Parus Major L.
John R. Krebs|Ecology|1971
Cited by 737

This paper describes an investigation into whether or not spring territorial behavior was limiting the breeding density of a population of Great Tits on Wytham Estate, near Oxford. The analysis of distances between neighboring nests showed that nest sites were more spaced out than would be expected from a random distribution; this indicated that interactions between the birds produced at least a local density—limiting effect. In 2 successive years, established territorial pairs were removed from a stable spring population in mixed woodland. The removed birds were rapidly replaced by new pairs. These newcomers were largely first—year birds; they came from territories in the hedgerows that surrounded the wood; the vacated hedgerow territories were not refilled. The hedgerows were found to be suboptimal in terms of reproductive success. Thus territory limited the breeding density in the optimal habitat. Song advertisement is probably important in maintaining territorial boundaries, hedgerow birds being able to detect the presence of individual woodland territory holders by recognizing their songs. The effect of winter food supply on the population was investigated by supplying excess food throughout one winter. This artificial food supplement appeared to have no effect on the number of Great Tits breeding in the wood, but did produce an increase in the case of a related species, the Blue Tit. The results show that territorial behavior influences density; this is not considered to be a function of territory in the evolutionary sense, but rather a consequence of spacing out that has been selected for in some other context. A possible advantage of spacing out in the Great Tit is as a defense against predators. Territory size varies considerably from year to year. These variations are the result of interactions between the birds themselves, rather than direct adjustments of territory size to fluctuations in some environmental resource. Even though territory has an effect on the number of birds breeding in the wood,it is not an important density—dependent factor acting to regulate the population.