At low prey densities there is no intraspecific competition, and the prey isocline is horizontal as in the Lotka-Volterra model. (1990), but the end result (Figure 10.7a) can be understood without reference to these details. The details of incorporating intraspecific competition into the prey zero isocline are described by Begon et al. \) The parameter \(b\) is the growth rate of species \(x\) (the prey) in the absence of interaction with species \(y\) (the predators).Originally derived by Volterra in 1926 to describe the interaction between a predator species and a prey species 1 and independently by Lotka to describe a chemical reaction 2, the general LotkaVolterra model is the starting point for a wide variety of models in The effects of intraspecific competition, and of a decline in predator consumption rate with predator density, can be investigated by modifying the Lotka-Volterra isoclines. It is based on linear per capita growth rates, which are written as \f b-p y\ and \(gr x-d\. The Lotka-Volterra model is the simplest model of predator-prey interactions.
In this case, the consumption rate depends on the ratio of prey to predators, and a particular ratio needs to be exceeded for the predators to increase in abundance: a crowding and theLotka-Volterra isoclines ratio-dependent predationFigure 10.6 (a) Mutual interference amongst crabs, Carcinus aestuarii, feeding on mussels, Musculista senhousia. A single energy storage element are described by first-order ODE models.An alternative modification is to abandon altogether the assumption that consumption rate depends only on the absolute availability of prey, and assume ratio-dependent predation instead (Arditi & Ginzburg, 1989), although this alternative has itself been criticized (see Abrams, 1997 Vucetich et al., 2002). Moreover, at high densities, competition for other resources will put an upper limit on the predator population (a horizontal isocline) irrespective of prey numbers (Figure 10.7b).Also known as Lotka-Volterra equations, the predator-prey equations are a pair. The predator zero isocline will depart increasingly from the vertical (Figure 10.7b).
((b, c) after Vucetich et al., 2002.)Diagonal zero isocline passing through the origin (Figure 10.7c). This curve fits better than any for which kill rate depends on either predator density (e.g. The fitted curve assumes a dependence of kill rate on this ratio, but also that the wolves may become 'saturated' at high moose densities (see Section 10.4.2). (After Mistri, 2003.)(b) Mutual interference amongst wolves, Canis lupus, preying on moose, Alces alces.(c) The same data but with wolf kill rate plotted against the moose : wolf ratio. The more crabs there were, the lower their per capita consumption rate.
(c) A predator zero isocline when there is prey : predator ratio dependent predation. (b) A predator zero isocline subject to crowding (see text). At the lowest prey densities this is the same as the Lotka-Volterra isocline, but when the density reaches the carrying capacity (KN) the population can only just maintain itself even in the complete absence of predators. There, significantly, they appear to be strongly self-limited by food availability, suitable burrowing habitat and their own spacing behavior (Karels & Boonstra, 2000).Figure 10.7 (a) A prey zero isocline subject to crowding. The microtines are renowned for their dramatic, cyclic fluctuations in abundance (see Chapter 14), but the ground squirrels have populations that remain remarkably constant from year to year, especially in open meadow and tundra habitats.
The strength of mutual interference may often have been exaggerated by forcing predators to forage in artificial arenas at densities much higher than those they experience naturally. (2003), for example, failed to find evidence of mutual interference in a field study of the parasitoid Tachinomyia similis attacking its moth host Orgyia vetusta. Strong predator self-limitation(iii) can eliminate oscillations altogether, but P* is low and N* is close to KN.On a cautionary note, however, Umbanhowar et al. Less efficient predators, as in(ii), give rise to a lowered predator abundance, an increased prey abundance and less persistent oscillations. Combination (i) is the least stable (most persistent oscillations) and has the most predators and least prey: the predators are relatively efficient. P* is the equilibrium abundance of predators, and N* the equilibrium abundance of prey.
There can be little doubt, though, that self-limitation in its various forms frequently plays a key role in shaping predator-prey dynamics.
0 kommentar(er)
