Game-theoretic methods for functional response and optimal foraging behavior

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Cressman, Ross ^a   Křivan, Vlastimil ^b   Brown, Joel S ^c   Garay, József ^d  

^a WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BOHEMIA   (Czech Republic)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^d EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALORIC INTAKE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION TREE; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; FUNCTION RESPONSE; GAME; MICROHABITAT; NASH EQUILIBRIUM; NONHUMAN; PREDATOR PREY INTERACTION; PREY SELECTION; PROBLEM SOLVING; STRATEGIC PLANNING; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ANIMALS; GAME THEORY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84896519707     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088773     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. The Canadian Entomologist 91: 385-398.
2. Holling CS (1966) The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 48: 5-88.
3. Hassell MP (1978) The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Murdoch WW, Briggs CJ, Nisbet RM (2003) Consumer-resource dynamics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
5. Abrams PA, Matsuda H (1996) Fitness minimization and dynamic instability as a consequence of predator-prey coevolution. Evolutionary Ecology 10: 167-186.
6. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theo-retical Population Biology 12: 197-229.
7. Holt RD, Kotler BP (1987) Short-term apparent competition. American Naturalist 130: 412-430.
8. Pulliam HR (1974) On the theory of optimal diets. American Naturalist 108: 57-74.
9. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid. American Naturalist 110: 141-151.
10. Lucas J (1983) The role of foraging time constraints and variable prey encounter in optimal diet choice. American Naturalist 122: 191-209. (Pubitemid 14275202)
11. Brown JS, Mitchell WA (1989) Diet selection on depletable resources. Oikos 54: 33-43. (Pubitemid 19324188)
12. Whelan CJ, Brown JS (2005) Optimal foraging and gut constraints: reconciling two schools of thought. Oikos 110: 481-496. (Pubitemid 41296765)
13. Pulliam HR (1975) Diet optimization with nutrient constraints. American Naturalist 109: 765-768.
14. Berec L, Křivan V (2000) A mechanistic model for partial preferences. Theoretical Population Biology 58: 279-289.
15. Krebs JR, Erichsen JT, Webber MI, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal prey selection in the great tit (Parus major). Animal Behaviour 25: 30-38. (Pubitemid 8047390)
16. Rechten C, Avery M, Stevens A (1983) Optimal prey selection: why do great tits show partial preferences? Animal Behaviour 31: 576-584.
17. Erichsen JT, Krebs JR, Houston AI (1980) Optimal foraging and cryptic prey. Journal of Animal Ecology 49: 271-276.
18. Selten R (1983) Evolutionary stability in extensive two-person games. Mathematical Social Sciences 5: 269-363.
19. Cressman R (2003) Evolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
20. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21. Garay J, Varga Z, Cabello T, Gamez M (2012) Optimal nutrient foraging strategy of an omnivore: Liebig's law determining numerical response. Journal of Theoretical Biology 310: 31-42.
22. Wald A (1944) On cumulative sums of random variables. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 15: 283-296.
23. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1999) Models of adaptive behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Garay J, Mori TF (2010) When is the opportunism remunerative? Community Ecology 11: 160-170.
25. Křivan V (1996) Optimal foraging and predator-prey dynamics. Theoretical Population Biology 49: 265-290. (Pubitemid 26309933)
26. Charnov EL, Orians GH (1973) Optimal foraging: Some theoretical explorations. http://hdl.handle.net/1928/1649.
27. Sandholm WH (2010) Population Games and Evolutionary Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
28. Broom M, Rychtar J (2013) Game-Theoretical Models in Biology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
29. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1998) Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Samuelson L (1997) Evolutionary Games and Equilibrium Selection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
31. Stephens DW, Lynch JF, Sorensen AE, Gordon C (1986) Preference and profitability - theory and experiment. American Naturalist 127: 533-553.
32. Kotler B, Mitchell WA (1995) The effect of costly information in diet choice. Evolutionary Ecology 9: 18-29. (Pubitemid 26447593)
33. Cressman R, Garay J (2011) The effects of opportunistic and intentional predators on the herding behavior of prey. Ecology 92: 432-440.
34. Vincent TL, Brown JS (2005) Evolutionary game theory, natural selection, and Darwinian dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Selten R (1978) The chain store paradox. Theory and Decision 9: 127-159.
36. Gale J, Binmore KG, Samuelson L (1995) Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game. Games and Economic Behavior 8: 56-90.
37. Weibull JW (1995) Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
38. Broom M, Luther RM, Ruxton GD (2004) Resistance is useless? - extensions to the game theory of kleptoparasitism. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 66: 1645-1658.
39. Dubois F, Giraldeau LA, Reale D (2012) Frequency-dependent payoffs and sequential decision-making favour consistent tactic use. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 279: 1977-1985.
40. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2002) Predator functional responses: Discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecological Monographs 72: 95-112. (Pubitemid 34124495)
41. Mukherjee S, Heithaus MR (2013) Dangerous prey and daring predators: a review. Biological Reviews 88: 550-563.
42. Clark CW, Mangel M (2000) Dynamic state variable models in ecology: methods and applications. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43. Engen S, Stenseth NC (1984) An ecological paradox: a food type may become more rare in the diet as a consequence of being more abundant. American Naturalist 124: 352-359. (Pubitemid 16273063)