Underestimation of mutual interference of predators

SummaryThe usual method of estimating the mutual interference constant, m, assumes a linear (type I) functional response of predators. In the cases where the response is not linear, the application of the method introduces a bias in the estimation of the searching efficiencies. It is shown that, as a consequence, the value of m is underestimated. A new method is proposed, which allows for a type II functional response due to a handling time. A comparative analysis of 15 data sets from the literature shows that the proposed method gives values of m that are consistently higher than those estimated by the traditional method. The new method calculates the parameters with nonlinear regression and provides standard errors for the estimates. Therefore, the reliability of the searching efficiencies, the handling time and the constant m can be quantified. Very few of the interference constants are significantly different from m=1. This special value implies that the functional response is a function of the ratio of prey and predator densities. These empirical findings support the suggestion of Arditi and Ginzburg (1989) that the functional response might often be ratio-dependent, especially in complex and heterogeneous situations.

[1]  Clifford H. Katz.  A nonequilibrium marine predator-prey interaction , 1985 .

[2]  D. A. Chant,et al.  EFFECTS OF PREDATOR AND PREY DENSITIES ON INTERACTIONS BETWEEN GOLDFISH AND DAPHNIA PULEX (DE GEER) , 1966 .

[3]  R. Arditi,et al.  Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: Ratio-Dependence , 1989 .

[4]  T. Royama.  A comparative study of models for predation and parasitism , 2006, Researches on Population Ecology.

[5]  D B Mertz,et al.  Cannibalism of the pupal stage by adult flour beetles: an experiment and a stochastic model. , 1968, Biometrics.

[6]  R. Edwards.  The Area of Discovery of Two Insect Parasites, Nasonia vitripennis (Walker) and Trichogramma evanescens Westwood, in an Artificial Environment , 1961, The Canadian Entomologist.

[7]  H. Rosenthal,et al.  PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PACIFIC HERRING, CLUPEA HARENGUS PALLASI, LARVAE AND A PREDATORY HYPERIID AMPHIPOD, HYPEROCHE MEDUSARUM 1 , 1976 .

[8]  M. Hassell.  The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. , 1979, Monographs in population biology.

[9]  Wayne M. Getz,et al.  Population Dynamics: a per capita Resource Approach , 1984 .

[10]  D. A. Chant,et al.  Experimental studies on acarine predator–prey interactions: the effects of predator density on prey consumption, predator searching efficiency, and the functional response to prey density (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) , 1982 .

[11]  John H. Lawton,et al.  On the Inadequacy of Simple Models of Mutual Interference for Parasitism and Predation , 1977 .

[12]  R. Kfir.  Functional response to host density by the egg parasiteTrichogramma pretiosum , 1983, Entomophaga.

[13]  M. Hassell,et al.  Patterns of parasitism by Trybliographa rapae, a cynipid parasitoid of the cabbage root fly, under laboratory and field conditions , 1988 .

[14]  D. Rogers,et al.  Random search and insect population models , 1972 .

[15]  R. Arditi,et al.  A Unified Model of the Functional Response of Predators and Parasitoids , 1983 .

[16]  J. Beddington,et al.  Mutual Interference Between Parasites or Predators and its Effect on Searching Efficiency , 1975 .

[17]  M. Hassell,et al.  New Inductive Population Model for Insect Parasites and its Bearing on Biological Control , 1969, Nature.