Effects of altered resource consumption rates by one consumer species on a competitor

Ecology Letters

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 550-555

  Abrams, Peter A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attack rate; Competition; Consumer resource system; Indirect effects; Overexploitation

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); CONSUMER-RESOURCE INTERACTION; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION SIZE; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY;

EID: 0038726996     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00463.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Abrams, P.A. (1975). Limiting similarity and the form of the competition coefficient. Theor. Pop. Biol., 8, 356-375.
2. Abrams, P.A. (1980). Consumer functional response and competition in consumer-resource systems. Theor. Pop. Biol., 17, 80-102.
3. Abrams, P.A. (1998). High competition with low similarity and low competition with high similarity: The interaction of exploitative and apparent competition in consumer-resource systems. Am. Nat., 152, 114-128.
4. Abrams, P.A. (2001). The effect of density independent mortality on the coexistence of exploitative competitors for renewing resources. Am. Nat., 158, 459-470.
5. Abrams, P.A., Menge, B.A., Mittelbach, G.G., Spiller, D. & Yodzis, P. (1996). The role of indirect effects in food webs. Food Webs: Integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York. pp. 371-395.
6. Case, T.J. (1999). An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
7. Chase, J., Abrams, P.A., Grover, J.P., Diehl, S., Chesson, P., Holt, R.D. et al. (2002). The effects of predators on competition between their prey. Ecol. Lett., 5, 302-313.
8. Haygood, R. (2002). Coexistence in MacArthur-style consumer-resource models. Theor. Pop. Biol., 61, 215-224.
9. Holling, C.S. (1959). The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Ent., 91, 293-320.
10. Holt, R.D. (1997). Community modules. In: Multitrophic interactions in terrestrial systems. (eds Gange, A.C., Brown, V.K.) British Ecological Society Symposium. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. pp. 333-350.
11. Hsu, S.B. & Hubbell, S.P. (1979). Two predators competing for two prey species: An analysis of MacArthur's model. Math. Biosci., 47, 143-171.
12. Lima, S.L. (1998). Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: Recent developments from behavioural, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv. Stud. Behav., 27, 215-290.
13. Luckinbill, L.S. (1973). Coexistence in laboratory populations of Paramecium aurelia and its predator, Didinium nasutum. Ecology, 54, 1320-1327.
14. MacArthur, R.H. (1970). Species packing and competitive equilibria for many species. Theor. Pop. Biol., 1, 1-11.
15. MacArthur, R.H. (1972). Geograhical Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
16. Peacor, S.D. (2002). Positive effects of predators on prey growth rate through induced modifications of prey behaviour. Ecol. Lett., 5, 77-85.
17. Peacor, S.D. & Werner, E.E. (2001). The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA), 98, 3904-3908.
18. Puccia, C.J. & Levins, R. (1985) Qualitative Analysis of Complex Systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Schoener, T.W. (1976). Alternatives to Lotka-Volterra competition: Models of intermediate complexity. Theor. Pop. Biol., 10, 308-333.
20. Schoener, T.W. (1993). On the relative importance of direct versus indirect effects in ecological communities. In: Mutualism and Community Organization: Behavioural, Theoretical, and Food Web Approaches (eds Kawanabe, H., Cohen, J.E., Iwasaki, K.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. pp. 365-411.
21. Sih, A., Crowley, P., McPeek, M., Petranka, J. & Strohmeier, K. (1985). Predation, competition, and prey communities: A review of field experiments. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 16, 269-311.
22. Slobodkin, L.B. (1974). Prudent predation does not require group selection. Am. Nat., 108, 665-678.
23. Vandermeer, J.H. (1993). Loose coupling of predator-prey cycles: Entrainment, chaos, and intermittency in the classic MacArthur consumer-resource equations. Am. Nat., 141, 687-716.