The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither?

By P. Abrams, Lev Ginzburg. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000

754 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/47b3a342fbc776691bfb79f9807b6414e3a56a94

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

Interaction strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities (2004, background): “…prey response Difficult to measure for all but a few interactions, and difficult to measure in an uncontrived (or natural) setting Beddington (1975) Abrams & Ginzburg (2000) Ruesink (1998) Relative prey preference Fraction of a predator's maximum consumption rate that is targeted to a specific…”
POPULATION REGULATION: HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES OF OPEN VS. CLOSED SYSTEMS (2002, background): “There is a glaring need for investigations of the mechanisms by which competitors, and especially predators, cause density-dependent mortality in these systems (see Abrams and Ginzburg 2000).”
Mortality and predation in ecosystem models: is it important how these are expressed? (2003, methodology): “Consideration of the complete list of functional responses is beyond the scope of our work and recent work suggests that ratio-dependent functions may not be suitable for use in general models, such as BM2 (Gleeson, 1994; Sarnelle, 1994; Abrams, 1994; Abrams and Ginzburg, 2000; Büssenschütt and Pahl”
Digestively constrained predators evade the cost of interference competition (2004, background): “…Ecological Society, Journal of Animal Ecology , 73 , 386–398 received by far the most attention, and forms the basis of much current thinking about aggregative responses (Tregenza 1995; van der Meer & Ens 1997; Abrams & Ginzburg 2000; Skalski & Gilliam 2001; Vucetich, Peterson & Schaefer 2002).”
Foraging arena theory (2012, background): “…vulnerable prey abundance vN is some fraction of the total prey population N. Note that both of these models imply two alternative ways to precisely define the phrase ‘limited food supply’, found in ecological arguments (e.g. Abrams and Ginzburg 2000) but generally lacks a formal definition.”
Topological properties of food webs: from real data to community assembly models Oikos 102 (2003, background): “…S. Future multitrophic assembly models should incorporate more ecological realism, perhaps with the introduction of different functional responses (Abrams and Ginzburg 2000, Bastolla et al. 2001), the spatial dimension of food webs (Polis et al. 1997) or evolutionary dynamics (Drossel and McKane…”
Permanence and Periodic Solution of Predator-Prey System with Holling Type Functional Response and Impulses (2007, methodology): “Many excellent works have been done for the Lotka-Volterra type predator-prey system, for example, see [1–12].”
Body‐mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food‐web dynamics (2010, background): “The predator interference term in the denominator is not necessarily linear, and it can also depend on the ratio between predator and prey densities ( Abrams & Ginzburg 2000 ).”
Functional and numerical responses do not always indicate the most effective predator for biological control: an analysis of two predators in a two‐prey system (2002, background): “Finally, predators may interfere with each other’s foraging and reduce the functional response of each individual predator in a population ( Abrams & Ginzburg 2000 ).”