Enemy-mediated apparent competition: empirical patterns and the evidence
By E. Chaneton, Michael B. Bonsall. 2000
247 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ee694ff111cfbe75c982b2491cdf4b269570e4e7
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 Nature and Landscape Conservation
Citations in the corpus
- Biological control of thrips and whiteflies by a shared predator: Two pests are better than one (2008, background): “Such asymmetric effects of prey species on each other through a shared predator have also been referred to as indirect amensalism rather than apparent competition (Chaneton and Bonsall, 2000).”
- Pollen subsidies promote whitefly control through the numerical response of predatory mites (2010, background): “One of these interactions is called apparent competition (Holt 1977) because increases in numbers of one prey population have a negative effect on equilibrium numbers of the other prey population (Holt 1977; Chaneton and Bonsall 2000).”
- Wolves, white-tailed deer, and beaver: implications of seasonal prey switching for woodland caribou declines (2013, background): “However, incidental predation can adversely affect populations of secondary prey, despite only weakly affecting populations of predators or primary prey (Chaneton and Bonsall 2000, DeCesare et al. 2010).”
- The community context of species' borders: ecological and evolutionary perspectives (2005, unknown): “In this and other examples, there is often a strong asymmetry in the indirect interaction (Chaneton and Bonsall 2000).”
- Ecologically based definition of seasons clarifies predator–prey interactions (2013, background): “…do not directly compete with moose for resources (Table 1), they may suffer from apparent competition with them, with asymmetrical interactions (Chaneton and Bonsall 2000) being mediated by wolves, in a fashion that shared three characteristics generally associated with endangerment of the…”
- Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation (2009, background): “However, asymmetrical ( , 0) interactions may be more common in nature (Chaneton & Bonsall, 2000), and could cause declines in one prey species (Fig.”
- Disease persistence and apparent competition in a three-host community: an empirical and analytical study of large-scale, wild populations (2001, background): “Chaneton & Bonsall (2000) suggested that parasitemediated apparent competition is almost always asymmetrical between hosts.”
- Indirect effects between shared prey: Predictions for (2004, background): “most prominent natural enemy, interactions with surrounding community members often make it necessary to model and explain biological control with multiple species models (Polis et al., 1989; Andow, 1991; Holt and Lawton, 1994; Wootton, 1994; Rosenheim et al., 1995; Muller and Godfray, 1997; Bonsall”