1996
DOI: 10.2307/5679
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shape of the Interference Function in a Foraging Vertebrate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
74
3

Year Published

1997
1997
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
9
74
3
Order By: Relevance
“…instantaneous predation rate in relation to prey density (Holling 1959), have direct consequences for the understanding of ecological processes at the individual level, such as the role of dominance and interference on foraging efficiency (Goss-Custard et al 1984, Stillman et al 1996, Norris and Johnstone 1998, and to evaluate the role of these individual differences at the population level (Rubenstein 1981, Goss-Custard et al 1995, Piersma et al 1995. There are several mechanisms that can generate the various functional responses, particularly the asymptotic part: the competition between handling and searching for a prey, but also the interference between harvesting food and the velocity of the animal, or the competition between cropping and processing food (see Spalinger and Hobbs 1992 for the theoretical approach on herbivores).…”
Section: H Fritz D Durant and M Guillemain Cnrs-upr 1934 Centrementioning
confidence: 99%
“…instantaneous predation rate in relation to prey density (Holling 1959), have direct consequences for the understanding of ecological processes at the individual level, such as the role of dominance and interference on foraging efficiency (Goss-Custard et al 1984, Stillman et al 1996, Norris and Johnstone 1998, and to evaluate the role of these individual differences at the population level (Rubenstein 1981, Goss-Custard et al 1995, Piersma et al 1995. There are several mechanisms that can generate the various functional responses, particularly the asymptotic part: the competition between handling and searching for a prey, but also the interference between harvesting food and the velocity of the animal, or the competition between cropping and processing food (see Spalinger and Hobbs 1992 for the theoretical approach on herbivores).…”
Section: H Fritz D Durant and M Guillemain Cnrs-upr 1934 Centrementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This could be due to more interference between flock members in larger groups. Larger flocks may be more likely to disrupt prey and cause a temporary reduction in amphipod availability due to the avoidance response of the prey (Goss-Custard 1980;Stillman et al 1996;Triplet et al 1999). This type of temporary reduction in prey is particularly likely for highly mobile prey such as amphipods 0.037* that can quickly seek cover within the sand or within beach debris in the presence of predators (Dolah 1978;Williams 1995).…”
Section: Flock Size and Feeding Interferencementioning
confidence: 98%
“…Simulations consider values of m in the range 0-2 < m < 0-6. Equations 3 and 4 assume that the coefficient of interference is constant; however, it may vary with consumer density (Hassell & Varley 1969;Beddington 1975;Hassell 1978;Stillman et al 1996) and resource density (Dolman 1995; Moody & Ruxton, in press).…”
Section: Simulation Model Of Spatial Depletionmentioning
confidence: 98%