FoRAGE database: A compilation of functional responses for consumers and parasitoids

Abstract

Functional responses, the relationships between consumer foraging rate and resource (prey) density, provide key insights into consumer–resource interactions while also being a major driver of population dynamics and food web structure. We present a global database of 2598 standardized functional responses and parameters extracted from the published literature. We refit the functional responses with a Type II model using standardized methods and report the fitted parameters along with data on experimental conditions, consumer and resource taxonomy and type, as well as the habitat and dimensionality of the foraging interaction. The consumer and resource species covered here are taxonomically diverse, from protozoans filtering algae to wasps parasitizing moth larvae to wolves hunting moose. The FoRAGE (Functional Responses from Around the Globe in all Ecosystems) database (doi: 10.5063/DB807S) is a living data set that will be updated periodically as new functional responses are published. Data are released under a CC‐By‐NC‐SA license, and credit should be given to this paper when referring to this specific version of the data release.

The consumption of viruses returns energy to food chains

“…2 A and B) that also provides estimates of key interaction parameters (SI Appendix). For space clearance rate (a), the estimate was 0.20 mL per predator per day (CIs: 0.11 to 0.30), which is in the realm of expected values for other foraging protists (8). For conversion efficiency (e), the estimate was 4.6 × 10 −7 (CIs: 3.1 × 10 −7 to 6.3 × 10 −7 ).…”

Food web functional responses

“…The evidence for such effects has increased steadily over the years (Lima, 1998;Werner and Peacor, 2003;Preisser et al, 2005;Creel and Christianson, 2008;Peckarsky et al, 2008;Loeuille, 2010;Allen et al, 2022). Nevertheless, even relatively comprehensive reviews of functional responses have largely ignored the effects of abundances at trophic levels above or below the predator-prey pair (e.g., DeLong, 2021;Novak and Stouffer, 2021a,b;Stouffer and Novak, 2021;Uiterwaal et al, 2022). Having adaptive behavior of the two intermediate species in a four-species food chain in theory allows effects of species that are three levels removed from the focal species (Abrams, 1992a).…”

“…The limited range of species used in functional response studies is illustrated by the comprehensive database by Uiterwaal et al (2022). Functional response theory should not be restricted to "predators" in the narrow sense of animals that eat other animals.…”

“…Holling's type II response is the most commonly observed form of single-prey functional response (Jeschke et al, 2002;Uiterwaal et al, 2022). It was originally defined as one that had a negative second derivative.…”

“…In fact, many other species in the food web containing a particular predator and particular prey have the potential to affect the consumption of that prey by that predator. Different ages, sizes, and/or genotypes within any of the species in the food web may also alter the functional response of a given predator type to a given prey type (DeLong et al, 2021;Uiterwaal et al, 2022).…”