Effects of perceptual and movement ranges on joint predator-prey distributions

Oikos

Volumn 121, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1935-1944

  Fraker, Michael E ^a   Luttbeg, Barney ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; EXPLOITATION; HOME RANGE; MOVEMENT; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREDICTION; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84869870165     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20496.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abrahams M. V. 1986. Patch choice under perceptual constraints: a cause for departures from an ideal free distribution. - Behav. Ecol. Soc. 19: 409-415.
2. Abrams P. A. 2000. The evolution of predator-prey interactions: theory and evidence. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31: 79-105.
3. Abrams P. A. 2007. Habitat choice in predator-prey systems: spatial instability due to interacting adaptive movements. - Am. Nat. 169: 581-594.
4. Alonzo S. H. 2002. State-dependent habitat selection games between predators and prey: the importance of behavioral interactions and expected lifetime reproductive success. - Evol. Ecol. Res. 4: 759-778.
5. Armsworth P. R. and Roughgarden J. E. 2005. The impact of directed versus random movement on population dynamics and biodiversity patterns. - Am. Nat. 165: 449-465.
6. Benoit-Bird K. J. and Au W. W. L. 2003. Prey dynamics affect foraging by pelagic predator (Stenella longirostris) over a range of spatial and temporal scales. - Behav. Ecol. Soc. 53: 364-373.
7. Berger-Tal O. and Kotler B. P. 2010. State of emergency: behavior of gerbils is affected by the hunger state of their predators. - Ecology 91: 593-600.
8. Bouskila A. 2001. A habitat selection game of interactions between rodents and their predators. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 38: 71-87.
9. Brown J. S. and Kotler B. P. 2004. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. - Ecol. Lett. 7: 999-1014.
10. Brown J. S. et al. 2001. The ecology of fear and the foraging game between owls and gerbils. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 38: 71-87.
11. Dupuch A. et al. 2009. Testing the effects of resource distribution and inherent habitat riskiness on simultaneous habitat selection by predators and prey. - Anim. Behav. 78: 705-713.
12. Flaxman S. M. and Lou Y. 2009. Tracking prey or tracking the prey's resource? Mechanisms of movement and optimal habitat selection by predators. - J. Theor. Biol. 256: 187-200.
13. Flaxman S. M. et al. 2011. Evolutionary ecology of movements by predators and prey. - Theor. Ecol. 4: 255-267.
14. Formanowicz D. R. and Bobka M. S. 1989. Predation risk and microhabitat preference: an experimental study of the behavioral responses of prey and predator. - Am. Midl. Nat. 121: 379-386.
15. Fretwell S. D. and Lucas H. L. 1969. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. - Acta Biotheor. 19: 16-36.
16. Grimm V. and Railsback S. F. 2005. Individual-based modeling and ecology. - Princeton Univ. Press.
17. Hammond J. I. et al. 2007. Predator and prey space use: dragonflies and tadpoles in an interactive game. - Ecology 88: 1525-1535.
18. Houston A. I. and McNamara J. M. 1999. Models of adaptive behaviour: an approach based on state. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
19. Hugie D. M. and Dill L. M. 1994. Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. - J. Fish. Biol. (Supp. sA) 45: 151-169.
20. Kotler B. P. et al. 2002. Foraging games between owls and gerbils: temporal dynamics of resource depletion and apprehension in gerbils. - Evol. Ecol. Res. 4: 495-518.
21. Krivan V. 1997. Dynamic ideal free distribution: effects of optimal patch choice on predator-prey dynamics. - Am. Nat. 149: 164-178.
22. Krivan V. and Schmitz O. J. 2003. Adaptive foraging and flexible food web topology. - Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 623-652.
23. Krivan V. et al. 2008. The ideal free distribution: a review and synthesis of the game theoretic perspective. - Theor. Pop. Biol. 73: 403-425.
24. Laundre J. W. 2010. Behavioral response races, predator-prey shell games, ecology of fear, and patch use of a large predator and its ungulate prey. - Ecology 91: 2995-3007.
25. Lima S. L. 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent development from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. - Adv. Stud. Behav. 27: 215-290.
26. Lima S. L. 2002. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 70-75.
27. Lima S. L. and Bednekoff P. A. 1999. Temporal variation in danger drives anti-predator behavior: the predation risk allo cation hypothesis. - Am. Nat. 153: 649-659.
28. Lima S. L. and Steury T. D. 2005. Perception of predation risk: the foundation of nonlethal predator-prey interactions. - In: Barbosa P. and Castellanos I. (eds), Ecology of pre dator-prey interactions. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 166-188.
29. Luttbeg B. and Schmitz O. J. 2000. Predator and prey models with flexible individual behavior and imperfect information. - Am. Nat. 155: 669-683.
30. Luttbeg B. and Sih A. 2004. Predator and prey habitat selection games: the effects of how prey balance foraging and predation risk. - Isr. J. Zool. 50: 233-254.
31. Luttbeg B. et al. 2009. Dragonfly larvae and tadpole frog space use games in varied light conditions. - Behav. Ecol. 20: 13-21.
32. Mitchell M. 1996. An introduction to genetic algorithms. - MIT Press.
33. Mitchell W. A. 2009. Multi-behavioral strategies in a predator-prey game: an evolutionary algorithm analysis. - Oikos 118: 1073-1083.
34. Mitchell W. A. and Lima S. L. 2002. Predator-prey shell games: large scale movement and its implications for decision-making by prey. - Oikos 99: 249-259.
35. Moody A. L. et al. 1996. Ideal free distributions under predation risk. - Behav. Ecol. Soc. 38: 131-143.
36. Nathan R. et al. 2008. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105: 19052-19059.
37. Rosenheim J. A. 2004. Top predators constrain the habitat selection games played by intermediate predators and their prey. - Isr. J. Zool. 50: 129-138.
38. Roth T. C. and Lima S. L. 2007. Use of predictable prey hotspots by predators: purposeful unpredictability? - Am. Nat. 169: 264-273.
39. Schmitz O. J. and Suttle K. B. 2001. Effect of top predator species on direct and indirect interactions in a food web. - Ecology 82: 2072-2081.
40. Sih A. 1984. The behavioral response race between predator and prey. - Am. Nat. 123: 143-150.
41. Sih A. 1998. Game theory and predator-prey response races. - In: Dugatkin L. A. and Reeve H. K. (eds), Advances in game theory and the study of animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 221-238.
42. Sih A. 2005. Predator-prey space use as an emergent outcome of a behavioral response race. - In: Barbosa P. and Castellanos I. (eds), Ecology of predator-prey interactions. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 240-255.
43. Skalski G. T. and Gilliam J. F. 2002. Feeding under predation hazard: testing models of adaptive behavior with stream fish. - Am. Nat. 160: 158-172.
44. Srinivasan M. et al. 2010. Behavioral games involving a clever prey avoiding a clever predator: an individual based model of dusky dolphins and killer whales. - Ecol. Modell. 221: 2687-2698.
45. Stephens D. W. and Stevens J. R. 2001. A simple spatially-explicit ideal free distribution: a model and an experiment. - Behav. Ecol. Soc. 49: 220-234.
46. Stewart A. J. A. et al. 2000. The world is heterogeneous: ecological consequences of living in a patchy environment. - In: Hutchings M. J. et al. (eds), The ecological consequences of environmental heterogeneity. Blackwell, pp. 1-8.
47. van Baalen M. and Sabelis M. W. 1993. Coevolution of patch selection strategies of predator and prey and the consequences for ecological stability. - Am. Nat. 142: 646-670.
48. van Baalen M. and Sabelis M. W. 1999. Nonequilibrium population dynamics of 'Ideal and free' prey and predators. - Am. Nat. 154: 69-88.
49. Werner E. E. and Gilliam J. F. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393-425.
50. Wirsing A. J. et al. 2007. Living on the edge: dugongs prefer foraging microhabitats that allow escape rather than avoidance of predators. - Anim. Behav. 74: 93-101.