Predator–prey interactions: is ‘ecological stoichiometry’ sufficient when good food goes bad?

By Aditee Mitra, Kevin J. Flynn. 2005

184 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b0839d9d5142cb41f42430913c0b23b68aea600

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. Kevin J. Flynn
2. J. Burkholder
3. P. Glibert
4. Aditee Mitra
5. A. Calbet
6. S. Hall
7. D. Stoecker
8. Keith Davidson

Citations in the corpus

• Building the “perfect beast”: modelling mixotrophic plankton (2009, methodology): “Without doubt a great challenge is the parameterization of models of mixotrophs, a situation which is even greater than that for phytoplankton and microzooplankton (Flynn, 2005b).”
• Bridging the gap between marine biogeochemical and fisheries sciences; configuring the zooplankton link (2014, background): “brane metabolite concentration and so increase the likelihood of absorption of compounds of value or, (ii) retain the food for a longer duration (with a low gut transit time) and thus ensure that digestion of the material is as complete as possible (Mitra and Flynn, 2005).”
• Selective feeding behaviour of key free-living protists: avenues for continued study (2008, background): “Furthermore, recent theoretical work has developed models that incorporate aspects of protistan selective grazing; e.g. Mitra et al. (2003) and Mitra & Flynn (2005) developed models that incorporate factors such as variable maximum ingestion rate, assimilation efficiency, and ‘stoichiometric…”
• Phytoplankton in a changing world: cell size and elemental stoichiometry (2010, background): “JOURNAL OF PLANKTON RESEARCH j VOLUME 32 j NUMBER 1 j PAGES 119–137 j 2010 nutrient in prey (Jones and Flynn, 2005), which varies with the concentration of limiting nutrient as well as environmental conditions such as irradiance and CO 2 (Urabe et al., 2002; Urabe et al., 2003).”
• The role of mixotrophic protists in the biological carbon pump (2013, background): “In addition, variability in stoichiometry is an important feature in simulating the dynamics of predation (Grover, 2003; Mitra and Flynn, 2005; Glibert et al., 2011).”
• The elemental stoichiometry of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and its relationships with organismic lifestyle and ecosystem structure and function: a review and perspectives (2011, background): “(2 0 0 6 ) in the nutritional quality of their prey (changes in allocation to defensive tissues or toxins, storage allocation) that can have a disproportionate effect on the efficiency of growth of the predator (Mitra and Flynn 2005).”
• Stoichiometrically Explicit Food Webs: Feedbacks between Resource Supply, Elemental Constraints, and Species Diversity (2009, background): “Additionally, more details concerning feeding biology should be added, for example, interactions of stoichiometric food quality and quantity with fatty acid content of autotrophs, gut processing time, toxins, and ingestion rates (Mitra & Flynn 2005).”
• Feeding in the dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina: linking behaviour with mechanisms (2011, methodology): “…been applied, to test various mechanistic mathematical model formulations that use prey carbon:nitrogen ratio as an index for prey quality (Davidson et al., 1995b; Mitra et al., 2003; Mitra and Flynn, 2005) and the application of the models are further discussed by Davidson et al. (this issue).”
• Castles built on sand : dysfunctionality in plankton models and the inadequacy of dialogue between biologists and modellers (2005, background): “This is an important topic not only because the stoichiometric relationship between predator and prey has an immediate impact on the interaction between these organisms (Hessen and Andersen, 1992) but because of other factors associated with food quality that affect prey rejection or switching (Mitr”