PREDATOR FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES: DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN HANDLING AND DIGESTING PREY

By Jonathan M. Jeschke, M. Kopp, R. Tollrian. 2002

655 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Genetics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/50eb559b7089f7e1159f3ca5d640346e532ebab3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Genetics

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach (2014, methodology): “…is a standard measure utilized in classic behavioural, population and community ecology (e.g. Sabelis 1992; Soluk 1993; Barbeau et al. 1998; Jeschke et al. 2002; van Leeuwen et al. 2007), and also a familiar technique in assessing the potential and efficacy of biological control agents…”
Multispecies modelling of some components of the marine community of northern and central Patagonia, Argentina (2005, background): “One of the most noticeable of these is related to the physiology of the digestion process (Rindorf 2002), which allows for so-called digestive pauses (Jeschke et al. 2002).”
Functional responses of the intertidal amphipod Echinogammarus marinus: effects of prey supply, model selection and habitat complexity (2012, background): “The attack rate, as it is classically referred to in functional response studies, is one such parameter that, as the scaling coefficient, describes the initial slope of the curve (Hassell & May 1973, Jeschke et al. 2002).”
Body‐mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food‐web dynamics (2010, background): “Over several decades, the Holling school of foraging ecology has established a plethora of quantitative models relating the varying strength of foraging interactions mechanistically to attack and handling parameters ( Jeschke, Kopp & Tollrian 2002, 2004 ).”
Finite-Difference Schemes for Reaction–Diffusion Equations Modeling Predator–Prey Interactions in MATLAB (2007, background): “Type II functional responses are the most frequently studied functional responses and well documented in empirical studies (for review, see Gentleman et al., 2003; Jeschke et al., 2002; Skalski and Gilliam, 2001).”
INDUCIBLE DEFENSES IN MULTIPREDATOR ENVIRONMENTS: CYCLOMORPHOSIS IN DAPHNIA CUCULLATA. (2004, methodology): “We used the attack efficiency, instead of a prey-oriented defense efficiency (1 2 attack efficiency), because it is commonly used in functional response models (for review, see Jeschke et al. 2002).”
Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. II. Patch choice and length of working day (2005, methodology): “Ever since they have been developed (see review by Jeschke et al. 2002), models of functional response have played a major role in understanding such foraging decisions (e.g. Fryxell 1991; Piersma et al. 1995; Stillman et al. 2002).”
Digestively constrained predators evade the cost of interference competition (2004, background): “However, as suggested recently by Jeschke et al . (2002) , most predators are ‘digestion-limited’ rather than ‘handling-limited’, meaning that their maximum long-term rates of intake are constrained by digestion rate.”
Indirect effects between shared prey: Predictions for (2004, background): “…is a rich and complex area, and this complexity has been incorporated into a wide variety of functional response equations (reviewed in Jeschke et al., 2002), each incorporating slightly different aspects of the consumer–resource interaction (nicely demonstrated in Figure 1; Jeschke et al., 2002).”
Body size evolution in insects with different colouration strategies: the role of predation risk (2009, positive): “Particular attention has been paid to the type III functional response (a convex curve of per capita predation rate as a function of prey population density), which has the potential to stabilize prey populations (Jeschke et al. 2002).”
Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. I. Prey choice (2005, background): “animals that spend all of their time foraging (handling and searching) and whose maximum rates of energy intake are ultimately constrained by the rate at which prey can be externally handled (Jeschke et al. 2002).”
Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions (2012, background): “Mammal Review © 2011 Mammal Society, Mammal Review, 42, 55–77 of studies (O’Donoghue et al. 1998, Jeschke et al. 2002 and references. therein).”