FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES WITH PREDATOR INTERFERENCE: VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE HOLLING TYPE II MODEL

By Garrick T. Skalski, J. F. Gilliam. 2001

690 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Genetics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8f748882bfc45087d85720eb18350dea86ca5b14

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 Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

Periodic solutions for predator–prey systems with Beddington–DeAngelis functional response on time scales (2008, background): “in [7] proposed, independently, has been studied extensively in both cases of discrete and continuous models in the literature [3,4,7,8,12,14].”
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).”
Intraspecific interference and consumer-resource dynamics (2004, neutral): “[13] and Skalski and Gilliam [36].”
The wolves of Isle Royale display scale-invariant satiation and ratio-dependent predation on moose (2005, methodology): “For this reason model selection is often done by constructing confidence intervals of the parameter m and testing the hypotheses m = 0 or m = 1 [see Arditi & Akcakaya (1990), Stow, Carpenter & Cottingham (1995), or Skalski & Gilliam (2001) ].”
Analysis of a stage-structured predator-prey model with Crowley-Martin function (2011, background): “This shows that b will affect the permanence of the community [24].”
Digestively constrained predators evade the cost of interference competition (2004, methodology): “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).”
Spatial, temporal and spatiotemporal patterns of diffusive predator-prey models with mutual interference (2015, methodology): “Moreover, in fitting different types of predator–prey data sets Skalski & Gilliam (2001) observed that the Beddington–DeAngelis functional response fits better for some data sets, while the Crowley– Martin functional response fits better for some others.”
Body‐mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food‐web dynamics (2010, background): “varies between one (hyperbolic type II functional response) and values larger than one (sigmoid type III functional response), and i is a coefficient varying the strength of predator interference (Holling 1959; Beddington 1975; De Angelis, Goldstein & O’Neill 1975; Real 1977; Skalski & Gilliam 2001”
Stability and persistence of food webs with omnivory: Is there a general pattern? (2012, background): “There is evidence that predators both alter their foraging behavior in the presence of other predators, and engage in intraspecific interference (Hassell 1978, Skalski and Gilliam 2001, Kratina et al. 2009).”
Food‐web connectance and predator interference dampen the paradox of enrichment (2008, positive): “Interestingly, ratio-dependent functional responses that can be deduced from predator-interference models under specific parameters (Skalski and Gilliam 2001, Arditi et al. 2004) also prevent the ‘‘paradox of enrichment’’ (Arditi and Ginzburg 1989, Huisman and De Boer 1997).”