Prey–predator size‐dependent functional response: derivation and rescaling to the real world

By Albashir A. Aljetlawi, E. Sparrevik, K. Leonardsson. 2004

214 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Temperature, predator–prey interaction strength and population stability (2009, background): “…ratios are large (e.g., small prey in our experiments), predator ingestion is constrained by the rate at which they can catch small prey and ingestion rates decrease with body-mass ratios, because the predators’ attacks become increasingly inefficient (Aljetlawi et al., 2004; Brose et al., 2008).”
The signature of phylogenetic constraints on food-web structure (2008, unknown): “…species, larger individuals may benefit from lower predation rate, but at the same time they may become less efficient in their role of predator, a feature found in several studies (e.g., Persson, 1987; Tripet and Perrin, 1994;Wahlstrom et al., 2000; Aljetlawi et al., 2004; Finstad et al., 2006).”
Warming up the system: higher predator feeding rates but lower energetic efficiencies (2011, methodology): “In addition, we extend prior models of body-mass constraints on functional responses (Aljetlawi et al., 2004; Brose et al., 2008; Gergs & Ratte, 2009; Vucic-Pestic et al., 2010a).”
Body‐mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food‐web dynamics (2010, background): “In particular, these hump-shaped attack rates find substantial empirical support (Hassell, Lawton & Beddington 1976; Spitze 1985; Wahlstrom et al. 2000; Aljetlawi, Sparrevik & Leonardsson 2004; Vonesh & Bolker 2005; Brose et al. 2008) and thus provide an improvement over prior models with constant”