Functional Responses With Predator Interference: Viable Alternatives to the Holling Type Ii Model

Skalski, Garrick T.; Gilliam, James F.

doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[3083:frwpiv]2.0.co;2

Cited by 556 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

218

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is consistent with the recent suggestion that along the continuum from ratio to prey dependence, intermediate interference will be the most commonly observed level [14-16]. Our study builds on previous reviews in more than doubling the number of unbiased estimates of m analyzed [6,13]. In addition, our study helps to resolve the long-standing debate over whether prey or ratio dependence is the better simplification.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Introducing and applying an unbiased method to data from previous studies, they found that most data produced estimates of m that were statistically indistinguishable from ratio dependence ( m = -1) but significantly different from prey dependence ( m = 0). Through time, additional researchers have formulated other approaches to estimating m [13], and more studies have been conducted using a variety of methods. Since then, several studies have suggested that intermediate mutual interference (i.e., somewhere between 0 and -1) is likely to be more common than either pure prey dependence ( m = 0) or ratio dependence ( m = -1) [14-16]; however, no effort has been made yet to synthesize the new and expanding literature on this topic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mutual interference is common and mostly intermediate in magnitude

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInterference competition occurs when access to resources is negatively affected by the presence of other individuals. Within a species or population, this is known as mutual interference, and it is often modelled with a scaling exponent, m, on the number of predators. Originally, mutual interference was thought to vary along a continuum from prey dependence (no interference; m = 0) to ratio dependence (m = -1), but a debate in the 1990's and early 2000's focused on whether prey or ratio dependence was the better simplification. Some have argued more recently that mutual interference is likely to be mostly intermediate (that is, between prey and ratio dependence), but this possibility has not been evaluated empirically.ResultsWe gathered estimates of mutual interference from the literature, analyzed additional data, and created the largest compilation of unbiased estimates of mutual interference yet produced. In this data set, both the alternatives of prey dependence and ratio dependence were observed, but only one data set was consistent with prey dependence. There was a tendency toward ratio dependence reflected by a median m of -0.7 and a mean m of -0.8.ConclusionsOverall, the data support the hypothesis that interference is mostly intermediate in magnitude. The data also indicate that interference competition is common, at least in the systems studied to date. Significant questions remain regarding how different factors influence interference, and whether interference can be viewed as a characteristic of a particular population or whether it generally shifts from low to high levels as populations increase in density.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutual interference is common and mostly intermediate in magnitude

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mass-specific consumption rate is described via a Beddington -deAngelis functional response [39]:…”

Section: (A) Population Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in evolving food webs

Allhoff

Drossel

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 17 to a theme issue 'Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in dynamic landscapes'. We use computer simulations in order to study the interplay between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF) during both the formation and the ongoing evolution of large food webs. A species in our model is characterized by its own body mass, its preferred prey body mass and the width of its potential prey body mass spectrum. On an ecological time scale, population dynamics determines which species are viable and which ones go extinct. On an evolutionary time scale, new species emerge as modifications of existing ones. The network structure thus emerges and evolves in a self-organized manner. We analyse the relation between functional diversity and five community level measures of ecosystem functioning. These are the metabolic loss of the predator community, the total biomasses of the basal and the predator community, and the consumption rates on the basal community and within the predator community. Clear BEF relations are observed during the initial build-up of the networks, or when parameters are varied, causing bottom-up or top-down effects. However, ecosystem functioning measures fluctuate only very little during long-term evolution under constant environmental conditions, despite changes in functional diversity. This result supports the hypothesis that trophic cascades are weaker in more complex food webs.

show abstract

“…The type III response is a sigmoid function. More functional responses have been described by various authors, all accommodating different mechanisms such as interference competition and different prey handling strategies, but type II is most commonly used (Skalski & Gilliam, 2001).…”

Section: Food Web In Mass Balancesmentioning

confidence: 99%