The ideal free distribution and predator-prey populations

Kacelnik, Alejandro; Krebs, John R.; Bernstein, Carlos

doi:10.1016/0169-5347(92)90106-l

Cited by 201 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The technical process of finding the IFD is then identical to the classical IFD with monotonically decreasing habitat profitability. M2 thus resembles the methods of Bernstein et al (1988Bernstein et al ( , 1991 and Kacelnik et al (1992) who sought for solutions in a multi-patch landscape with strictly negative effects of competition. M2 may also find the IFD at very low competitor abundances, so that all depths are utilized in the rising left-hand side of the profitability curve.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IFD models have been around for a while, yet they have largely been limited to small systems (but see Bernstein et al, 1988Bernstein et al, , 1991Kacelnik et al, 1992) and diminishing return curves. To find an IFD for a large population offered a series of patches with peaked profitability curves will have tremendous computation costs, and we are forced to seek biologically sound simplifications of the problem.…”

Section: ¢* S(n)=s2(n2):=sx(nk)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ideal free distribution of copepods under predation risk

Giske

Rosland

Berntsen

et al. 1997

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ¢* S(n)=s2(n2):=sx(nk)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideal free distribution of copepods under predation risk

Giske

Rosland

Berntsen

et al. 1997

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, access to favorable resources may be limited by bottom‐up effects, such as resource availability, and top‐down effects, such as risk avoidance and competition. Competition can be between individuals within the same species (intraspecific competition), or between different species needing the same resources (interspecific competition; Kacelnik, Krebs, & Bernstein, 1992; Keddy, 2001). Interspecific competition includes that between wildlife and humans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living on the edge: Multiscale habitat selection by cheetahs in a human‐wildlife landscape

Klaassen

Broekhuis

2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals select habitats that will ultimately optimize their fitness through access to favorable resources, such as food, mates, and breeding sites. However, access to these resources may be limited by bottom‐up effects, such as availability, and top‐down effects, such as risk avoidance and competition, including that with humans. Competition between wildlife and people over resources, specifically over space, has played a significant role in the worldwide decrease in large carnivores. The goal of this study was to determine the habitat selection of cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in a human‐wildlife landscape at multiple spatial scales. Cheetahs are a wide‐ranging, large carnivore, whose significant decline is largely attributed to habitat loss and fragmentation. It is believed that 77% of the global cheetah population ranges outside protected areas, yet little is known about cheetahs’ resource use in areas where they co‐occur with people. The selection, or avoidance, of three anthropogenic variables (human footprint density, distance to main roads and wildlife areas) and five environmental variables (open habitat, semiclosed habitat, edge density, patch density and slope), at multiple spatial scales, was determined by analyzing collar data from six cheetahs. Cheetahs selected variables at different scales; anthropogenic variables were selected at broader scales (720–1440 m) than environmental variables (90–180 m), suggesting that anthropogenic pressures affect habitat selection at a home‐range level, whilst environmental variables influence site‐level habitat selection. Cheetah presence was best explained by human presence, wildlife areas, semiclosed habitat, edge density and slope. Cheetahs showed avoidance for humans and steep slopes and selected for wildlife areas and areas with high proportions of semiclosed habitat and edge density. Understanding a species’ resource requirements, and how these might be affected by humans, is crucial for conservation. Using a multiscale approach, we provide new insights into the habitat selection of a large carnivore living in a human‐wildlife landscape.

show abstract

“…The idea that per capita resource availability strongly influences species' behavior and population dynamics has a long history in ecology (Fretwell and Lucas 1969;Kacelnik et al 1992;Achord et al 2003). Our analysis has clearly demonstrated that members of the musical chairs family of instantaneous per capita prey mortality functions, which depend on the ratio of prey to refuges, describe bridled goby deaths better than do functions that depend on either prey density alone or on the arithmetic difference between prey and refuge density.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Musical chairs mortality functions: density-dependent deaths caused by competition for unguarded refuges

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural refuges within which prey can escape from predators can be an important limiting resource for the prey. In a manner that resembles the childhood game of musical chairs, many prey species rapidly retreat to shared, unguarded refuges whenever a predator threatens, and only when refuges are relatively abundant do all prey individuals actually escape. The key feature of this process is that the per capita prey mortality rate depends on the ratio of prey individuals to refuges. We introduce a new class of mortality functions with this feature and then demonstrate statistically that they describe field mortality data from a well-studied coral reef fish species, the Caribbean bridled goby Coryphopterus glaucofraenum, substantially better than do several mortality functions of more conventional form.

show abstract

The ideal free distribution and predator-prey populations

Cited by 201 publications

References 32 publications

Ideal free distribution of copepods under predation risk

Ideal free distribution of copepods under predation risk

Living on the edge: Multiscale habitat selection by cheetahs in a human‐wildlife landscape

Musical chairs mortality functions: density-dependent deaths caused by competition for unguarded refuges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About