Search rate, attack probability, and the relationship between prey density and prey encounter rate

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 842-846

  Ioannou, Christos C ^a   Ruxton, Graeme D ^b   Krause, Jens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Detection; Encounter rate; Foraging; Search rate; Three spined stickleback

Indexed keywords

AUTOCORRELATION; CATERPILLAR; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; EDGE EFFECT; ENCOUNTER RATE; POPULATION DENSITY; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY AVAILABILITY; PREY CAPTURE; PREY LOCATION; TELEOST;

GASTEROSTEUS ACULEATUS;

EID: 47649102364     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arn038     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Allen JA, Raison HE, Wealer ME. 1998. The influence of density on frequency-dependent selection by wild birds feeding on artificial prey. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 265:1031-1035.
2. Cronin JT, Reeve JD. 2005. Host-parasitoid spatial ecology: a plea for a landscape-level synthesis. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 272:2225-2235.
3. Denny MW, Gaines S. 2000. Chance in biology: using probability to explore nature. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
4. Dukas R. 2002. Behavioural and ecological consequences of limited attention. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 357:1539-1547.
5. Gendron RP, Staddon JER. 1983. Searching for cryptic prey: the effect of search rate. Am Nat. 121:172-186.
6. Gendron RP, Staddon JER. 1984. A laboratory simulation of foraging behavior: the effect of search rate on the probability of detecting prey. Am Nat. 124:407-415.
7. Ghazoul J. 2006. Floral diversity and the facilitation of pollination. J Ecol. 94:295-304.
8. Holling CS. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol. 91:385-398.
9. Kelly JF. 1996. Effects of substrate on prey use by belted kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon): a test of the prey abundance-availability assumption. Can J Zool. 74:693-697.
10. Krause J, Godin JJ. 1996. Influence of prey foraging posture on flight behavior and predation risk: predators take advantage of unwary prey. Behav Ecol. 7:264-271.
11. Lima SL. 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Study Behav. 27:215-290.
12. Lima SL. 2002. Putting predators back into behavioural predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol. 17:70-75.
13. Lotka AJ. 1925. Elements of physical biology. Baltimore (MD): Williams and Wilkins.
14. Marples NM, Roper TJ, Harper DGC. 1998. Responses of wild birds to novel prey: evidence of dietary conservatism. Oikos. 83:161-165.
15. Mols CMM, van Oers K, Witjes LMA, Lessells CM, Drent PJ, Visser ME. 2004. Central assumptions of predator-prey models fail in a semi-natural experimental system. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 271(Suppl 3):S85-S87.
16. Ruxton GD. 2005. Increasing search rate over time may cause slower than expected increase in prey encounter rate with increasing prey density. Biol Lett. 1:133-135.
17. Shipley LA, Spalinger DE, Gross JE, Thompson Hobbs N, Wunder BA. 1996. The dynamics and scaling of foraging velocity and encounter rate in mammalian herbivores. Funct Ecol. 10:234-244.
18. Thomas G. 1974. The influences of encountering a food object on subsequent searching behavior in Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Anim Behav. 22:941-952.
19. Travis JMJ, Palmer SCF. 2005. Spatial processes can determine the relationship between prey encounter rate and prey density. Biol Lett. 1:136-138.
20. Wieser W. 1991. Limitations of energy acquisition and energy use in small poikilotherms: evolutionary implications. Funct Ecol. 5:234-240.