Local interactions between predators and prey call into question commonly used functional responses

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 220, Issue 9-10, 2009, Pages 1182-1188

  Okuyama, Toshinori ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Antipredator behavior; Encounter rate; Functional response; IBM; Individual based model; Predator dependence; Prey taxis

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR BEHAVIOR; ENCOUNTER RATE; FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; IBM; INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODEL; PREDATOR-DEPENDENCE; PREY TAXIS;

SIZE DISTRIBUTION;

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; COMMUNITY DYNAMICS; ENCOUNTER RATE; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 63549123752     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.02.010     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abrams P.A., and Ginzburg L.R. The nature of predation: prey dependent, or ratio dependent or neither?. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2000) 337-341
2. Anderson J.J., Gurarie E., and Zabel R.W. Mean free-path length theory of predator-prey interactions: Application to juvenile salmon migration. Ecological Modelling 186 (2005) 196-211
3. Bolker B.M., and Pacala S.W. Spatial moment equations for plant competition: Understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. American Naturalis 153 (1999) 575-602
4. Case T.J. An Illustrated Guide to Theoretical Ecology (2000), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
5. Cuddington K., and Yodzis P. Predator-prey dynamics and movement in fractal environments. American Naturalist 160 (2002) 119-134
6. de Roos A.M., McCauley E., and Wilson W.G. Mobility versus density-limited predator-prey dynamics on different spatial scales. Proceedings of Royal Society London B 246 (1991) 117-122
7. Fussmann G.F., Weithoff G., and Yoshida T. A direct experimental test of resource vs. consumer dependence. Ecology 86 (2005) 2924-2930
8. Fussmann G.F., Weithoff G., and Yoshida T. A direct experimental test of resource vs. consumer dependence: reply. Ecology 88 (2007) 1603-1604
9. Hassell M.P. The Dynamics of Arthropod Predator-Prey Systems (1978), Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
10. Holling C.S. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Canadian Entomologist 91 (1959) 385-398
11. Jensen C.X.J., and Ginzburg L.R. Paradoxes or theoretical failures? The jury is still out. Ecological Modelling 188 (2005) 3-14
12. Jensen C.X.J., Jeschke J.M., and Ginzburg L.R. A direct experimental test of resource vs. consumer dependence: comment. Ecology 88 (2007) 1600-1602
13. Kareiva P., and Tilman D. Spatial Ecology (2000), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
14. Keeling M.J., Wilson H.B., and Pacala S.W. Re-interpreting space, time-lags and functional responses in ecological models. Science 290 (2000) 1758-1761
15. Kratina P., Vos M., and Anholt B.R. Species diversity modulates predation. Ecology 88 (2007) 1917-1923
16. McCauley E., Wilson W.G., and de Roos A.M. Dynamics of age-structured and spatially structured predator-prey interactions: individual-based models and population-level formulations. American Naturalist 142 (1993) 412-442
17. Mols C.M.M., van Oers K., Witjes L.M.A., Lessells C.M., Drent P.J., and Visser M.E. Central assumptions of predator-prey models fail in a semi-natural experimental system. Proceedings of Royal Society London B 271 (2004) S85-S87
18. Murrell D.J. Local spatial structure and predator-prey dynamics: counterintuitive effects of prey enrichment. American Naturalist 166 (2005) 354-367
19. Oaten A., and Murdoch W.W. Functional response and stability in predator-prey systems. American Naturalist 109 (1975) 289-298
20. Okuyama T. Individual behavioral variation in predator-prey models. Ecological Research 23 (2008) 665-671
21. Petersen J.H., and DeAngelis D.L. Dynamics of prey moving through a predator field: A model of migrating juvenile salmon. Mathematical Biosciences 165 (2000) 97-114
22. Royama T. A comparative study of models for predation and parasitism. Researches on Population Ecology 1 Suppl. (1971) 1-91
23. Schenk D., Bersier L.-F., and Bacher S. An experimental test of the nature of predation: neither prey- nor ratio-dependent. Journal of Animal Ecology 74 (2005) 86-91
24. Stephens D.W., and Krebs J.R. Foraging Theory (1986), Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
25. Travis J.M.J., and Palmer S.C.F. Spatial processes can determine the relationship between prey encounter rate and prey density. Biology Letters 1 (2005) 136-138
26. Tully T., Cassey P., and Ferriére R. Functional response: rigorous estimation and sensitivity to genetic variation in prey. Oikos 111 (2005) 479-487
27. Vos M., Berrocal S.M., Karamaouna F., Hemerik L., and Vet L.E.M. Plant-mediated indirect effects and the persistence of parasitoid-herbivore communities. Ecology Letters 4 (2001) 38-45
28. Vos M., Flik B.J.G., Vijverberg J., Ringelberg J., and Mooij W.M. From inducible defences to population dynamics: modelling refuge use and life history changes in Daphnia. Oikos 99 (2002) 386-396
29. Vos M., and Hemerik L. Linking foraging behaviour to lifetime reproductive success for an insect parasitoid: adaptation to host distributions. Behavioral Ecology 14 (2003) 236-245
30. Wilensky U. NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling (1999), Northwestern University, Evanston, IL