What happens when pradators do not completely consume their prey?

Theoretical Population Biology

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 238-251

  Mittler, John ^a  

^a LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; COMPETITION; MODELLING; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY CONSUMPTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ECOSYSTEM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREDATION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0030610437     PISSN: 00405809     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/tpbi.1997.1305     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abrams P. A. Theory of limiting similarity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14:1983;359-376.
2. Atkinson K. E. An Introduction to Numerical Analysis. 1978;Wiley, New York.
3. Atkinson W. D., Shorrocks B. Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource: a simulation model. J. Anim. Ecol. 50:1981;461-471.
4. Brown J. S. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22:1988;37-47.
5. Brown J. S. Coexistence on a seasonal resource. Am. Nat. 133:1989;168-182.
6. Brown J. S., Kotler B. P., Mitchell W. M. Foraging theory, patch use and the structure of a Negev desert granivore community. Ecology. 75:1994;2286-2300.
7. Bruggink J. G., Tacha T. C., Davies J. C., Abraham K. F. Nesting and brood-rearing ecology of Mississippi Valley population Canada geese. Wildlife Monographs. 126:1994;1-39.
8. Davidson D. W. Foraging ecology and community organization in desert seed eating ants. Ecology. 58:1977;725-737.
9. Dudgeon D., Cheung Pui Shan C. Selection of gastropod prey by a tropical freshwater crab. J. Zool. Lond. 220:1990;147-155.
10. Formanowicz D. R. Foraging tactics of an aquatic insect: partial consumption of prey. Anim. Behav. 321:1984;774-781.
11. Gomez J. M., Zamora R. Top-down effects in a tritrophic system: parasitoids enhance fitness. Ecology. 75:1994;1023-1030.
12. Haigh J., Smith J. M. Can there be more predators than prey? Theor. Pop. Biol. 3:1972;290-299.
13. Harris J. H. An experimental analysis of desert rodent foraging ecology. Ecology. 65:1984;1579-1584.
14. Heard S. B. Processing chain ecology: resource condition and interspecific interactions. J. of Animal Ecol. 63:1994;451-464.
15. Heard S. B. Short-term dynamics of processing chain systems. Ecological Modelling. 80:1995;57-68.
16. Hodges C. M., Wolf L. L. Optimal foraging in bumblebees: Why is nectar left behind in flowers? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9:1981;41-44.
17. Ives A. R., May R. M. Competition within and between species in a patchy environment: relations between microscopic and macroscopic models. J. Theor. Biol. 115:1985;65-92.
18. Ives A. R. Covariance, coexistence and the population dynamics of two competitors using a patchy resource. J. Theor. Biol. 133:1988;345-361.
19. Johnson L. K., Hubbell S. P. Contrasting foraging strategies and coexistence of two bee species on a single resource. Ecology. 56:1975;1398-1406.
20. Koch A. L. Coexistence resulting from an alternation of density dependent and density independent growth. J. Theor. Biol. 44:1974;373-386.
21. Kotler B. P., Brown J. S. Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology. 72:1991;2249-2260.
22. Lenski R. E., Hattingh S. Coexistence of two competitors on one resource and one inhibitor: a chemostat model based on bacteria and antibiotics. J. Theor. Biol. 122:1986;83-93.
23. A. J. Lotka, 1925, Elements of Physical Biology, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
24. Lundberg P., Danell K. Functional response of browsers: tree exploitation by moose. Oikos. 58:1990;378-384.
25. Peterson C. H., Skilleter G. A. Control of foraging behavior of individuals within an ecosystem context: the clamMacoma balthica. Oecologia. 100:1994;256-267.
26. Price M. V. Seed dispersion preferences of coexisting desert rodent species. J. of Mammalogy. 59:1978;624-626.
27. Price M. V., Brown J. H. Patterns of morphology and resource use in North American desert rodent communities. Great Basin naturalist Memoirs. 7:1983;117-134.
28. Price M. V. Effects of body size, seed density, and soil characteristics on rates of seed harvest by heteromyid rodents. Oecologia. 61:1984;420-425.
29. Price M. V., Reichman O. J. Distribution of seeds in Sonoran Desert soils: implications for heteromyid rodent foraging. Ecology. 68:1987;1797-1811.
30. Reichman O. J. Factors influencing foraging in desert rodents. Foraging Behavior - Ecological, Ethological, and Psychological Approaches. 1981;Garland Press, New York. p. 195-213.
31. Reichman O. J., Oberstein D. Selection of seed distribution types by Dipodomys merriani and Perognathus amplus. Ecology. 58:1977;636-643.
32. Rohani P., Godfray H. C. J., Hassell M. P. Aggregation and the dynamics of host-parasitoids systems: a discrete-gener- ation model with within-generation redistribution. Am. Nat. 14:1994;491-509.
33. Schoener T. W. Alternatives to Lotka-Volterra competition: models of intermediate complexity. Theor. Pop. Biol. 10:1976;309-333.
34. Sih A. Optimal foraging: partial consumption of prey. Am. Nat. 116:1980;281-290.
35. Steele M. A., Knowles T., Bridle K., Simms E. L. Tannins and partial consumption of acorns: implications for dispersal of oaks by seed predators. Am. Midl. Nat. 130:1993;229-238.
36. Tilman D. Resource Partitioning and Community Structure. 1982;Princeton.
37. Vance R. R. The stable coexistence of two consumers for one resource. Am. Nat. 126:1985;72-86.
38. Volterra V. Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature. 188:1926;558-560.
39. Whitham T. G. Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: A last dreg theory. Science. 197:1977;593-596.
40. Zajac R. N. Sublethal predation onPolydora cornuta. Marine Biology. 123:1995;531-541.