Should "handled" prey be considered? Some consequences for functional response, predator-prey dynamics and optimal foraging theory

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 227, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 167-174

  Křivan, Vlastimil ^a   Vrkoč, Ivo ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF ENTOMOLOGY   (Czech Republic)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BOHEMIA   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Functional response; Interference; Optimal foraging theory; Predator prey models

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL MODELING; FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; HANDLING TIME; OPTIMUM FORAGING THEORY; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION;

ARTICLE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; OPTIMAL FORAGING; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREDATOR; PREDATOR PREY INTERACTION; PREDICTION; PREY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

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

EID: 1442360011     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2003.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Beddington J.R. Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J. Anim. Ecol. 44:1975;331-340.
2. Bélisle C., Cresswell J. The effects of a limited memory capacity on foraging behavior. Theor. Popul. Biol. 52:1997;78-90.
3. Berec L., Křivan V. A mechanistic model for partial preferences. Theor. Popul. Biol. 58:2000;279-289.
4. Charnov E.L. Optimal foraging. the marginal value theorem Theor. Popul. Biol. 9:1976;129-136.
5. DeAngelis D.L., Goldstein R.A., O'Neill R.V. A model for trophic interactions. Ecology. 56:1975;881-892.
6. Eveleigh E.S., Chant D.A. Experimental studies on acarine predator-prey interactions. the effects of predator density on prey consumption, predator searching efficiency, and the functional response to prey density (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) Can. J. Zool. 60:1982;611-629.
7. Free C.A., Beddington J.R., Lawton J.H. On the inadequacy of simple models of mutual interference for parasitism and predation. J. Anim. Ecol. 46:1977;543-554.
8. Freedman H.I. Stability analysis or a predator-prey, system with mutual interference and density-dependent death rates. Bull. Math. Biol. 41:1979;67-78.
9. Fretwell D.S., Lucas H.L. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 19:1970;16-32.
10. Holling C.S. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91:1959;385-398.
11. Houston A.I., McNamara J.M. Models of Adaptive Behaviour. 1999;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
12. Krebs J.R., Erichsen J.T., Webber M.I., Charnov E.L. Optimal prey selection in the great tit (Parus major). Anim. Behav. 25:1977;30-38.
13. Křivan V. Optimal foraging and predator-prey dynamics. Theor. Popul. Biol. 49:1996;265-290.
14. Křivan V., Eisner J. Optimal foraging and predator-prey dynamics III. Theor. Popul. Biol. 63:2003;269-279.
15. Křivan V., Sikder A. Optimal foraging and predator-prey dynamics II. Theor. Popul. Biol. 55:1999;111-126.
16. Křivan V., Vrkoč I. Patch choice under predation hazard. Theor. Popul. Biol. 58:2000;329-340.
17. Mangel M., Clark C.W. Dynamic Modeling in Behavioral Ecology. 1988;Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
18. McNamara J.M., Houston A.I. Partial preferences and foraging. Anim. Behav. 35:1987;1084-1099.
19. Murdoch W.W., Oaten A. Predation and population stability. Adv. Ecol. Res. 9:1975;1-131.
20. Polis G.A. Exploitation competition and the evolution of interference and intraguild predation in age/size structured populations. Ebenman B., Persson L. Size Structured Populations: Ecology and Evolution. 1988;185-202 Springer, New York, NY, USA.
21. Rechten C., Avery M., Stevens A. Optimal prey selection. why do great tits show partial preferences? Anim. Behav. 31:1983;576-584.
22. Ruxton G.D., Gurney W.S.C., deRoos A.M. Interference and generation cycles. Theor. Popul. Biol. 42:1992;235-253.
23. Skalski G.T., Gilliam J.F. Functional responses with predator interference. viable alternatives to the holling type II model Ecology. 82:2001;3083-3092.
24. Stephens D.W., Krebs J.R. Foraging Theory. 1986;Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
25. van der Meer J., Ens B.J. Models of interference and their consequences for the spatial distribution of ideal and free predators. J. Anim. Ecol. 66:1997;846-858.