Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 157, Issue 5, pp 1027–1040 | Cite as

Testing a stochastic version of the Beddington–DeAngelis functional response in foraging shore crabs

  • Isabel M. SmallegangeEmail author
  • Jaap van der Meer
Original Paper

Abstract

Current behaviour-based interference models assume that the predator population is infinitely large and that interference is weak. While the realism of the first assumption is questionable, the second assumption conflicts with the purpose of interference models. Here, we tested a recently developed stochastic version of the Beddington–DeAngelis functional response—which applies to a finite predator population without assuming weak interference—against experimental data of shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) foraging on mussels (Mytilus edulis). We present an approximate maximum likelihood procedure for parameter estimation when only one focal individual is observed, and introduce ‘correction factors’ that capture the average behaviour of the competing but unobserved individuals. We used the method to estimate shore crab handling time, interaction time, and searching rates for prey and competitor. Especially the searching rates were sensitive to variation in prey and competitor density. Incorporating constant parameter values in the model and comparing observed and predicted feeding rates revealed that the predictive power of the model is high. Our stochastic version of the Beddington–DeAngelis model better reflects reality than current interference models and is also amenable for modelling effects of interference on predator distributions.

Keywords

Prey Item Prey Density Agonistic Interaction Predator Density Stochastic Version 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Maurice Sabelis for constructive comments and discussion. IMS was financially supported by a research grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

References

  1. Abrams PA (1990) The effects of adaptive behavior of the type-2 functional response. Ecology 71:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites and predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol 44:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR (1990) Ecology: individuals, populations, and communities. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Billingsley P (1961) Statistical methods in Markov chains. Ann Math Stat 32:12–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockmann HJ, Barnard CJ (1979) Kleptoparasitism in birds. Anim Behav 27:487–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broom M, Ruxton GD (1998) Evolutionarily stable stealing: game theory applied to kleptoparasitism. Behav Ecol 9:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cresswell W (1998) Variation in the strength of interference competition with resource density in blackbirds, Turdus merula. Oikos 81:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crothers JH (1968) The biology of the shore crab Carcinus maenas (L.) 2. The life of the adult crab. Field Stud 2:579–614Google Scholar
  9. DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O’Neill RV (1975) A model for trophic interaction. Ecology 56:881–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolman PM (1995) The intensity of interference varies with resource density: evidence from a field study with snow buntings, Plectrophenox nivalis. Oecologia 102:511–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donazar JA, Travaini A, Ceballos O, Rodriguez A, Delibes M, Hiraldo F (1999) Effects of sex-associated competitive asymmetries on foraging group structure and despotic distribution in Andean condors. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Érdi P, Tóth J (1988) Mathematical models of chemical reactions: theory and applications of deterministic and stochastic models. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Finelli CM, Pentcheff ND, Zimmer RK, Wethey DS (2000) Physical constraints on ecological processes: a field test of odor-mediated foraging. Ecology 81:784–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goss-Custard JD (1980) Competition for food and interference amongst waders. Ardea 68:31–52Google Scholar
  16. Goss-Custard JD, Sutherland WJ (1997) Individual behaviour, populations and conservation. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural Ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 373–395Google Scholar
  17. Haccou P, Dienske H, Meelis E (1983) Analysis of time-inhomogeneity in Markov chains applied to mother–infant interactions of rhesus monkeys. Anim Behav 31:927–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmgren N (1995) The ideal free distribution of unequal competitors: predictions from a behaviour-based functional response. J Anim Ecol 64:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeschke JM, Kopp M, Tollrian R (2002) Predator functional responses: discriminating between handling and digesting prey. Ecol Monogr 72:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Metz JAJ, Dienske H, de Jonge G, Putters FA (1983) Continuous time Markov chains as models for animal behaviour. Bull Math Biol 45:643–658PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Moody AL, Houston AI (1995) Interference and the ideal free distribution. Anim Behav 49:1065–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norris J (1997) Markov chains. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Norris K, Johnstone I (1998) Interference competition and the functional response of oystercatchers searching for cockles by touch. Anim Behav 56:639–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker GA, Sutherland WJ (1986) Ideal free distribution when individuals differ in competitive ability: phenotype-limited ideal free models. Anim Behav 34:1222–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ross SM (1989) Introduction to probability models. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruxton GD, Moody AL (1997) The ideal free distribution with kleptoparasitism. J Theor Biol 186:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruxton GD, Gurney WSC, De Roos AM (1992) Interference and generation cycles. Theor Popul Biol 42:235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Smallegange IM, Van der Meer J (2007) Interference from a game theoretical perspective: shore crabs suffer most from equal competitors. Behav Ecol 18:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smallegange IM, Van der Meer J (2009) The distribution of unequal predators across food patches is not necessarily (semi)-truncated. Behav Ecol 20:525–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smallegange IM, Van der Meer J, Kurvers RHJM (2006) Disentangling interference competition from exploitative competition in a crab-bivalve system using a novel experimental approach. Oikos 113:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sneddon LU, Huntingford FA, Taylor AC (1997) Weapon size versus body size as a predictor of winning in fights between shore crabs, Carcinus maenas (L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG (1997) Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 66:692–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stillman RA, Poole AE, Goss-Custard JD, Caldow RWG, Yates MG, Triplet P (2002) Predicting the strength of interference more quickly using behaviour-based models. J Anim Ecol 71:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sutherland WJ, Dolman PM (1994) Combining behaviour and population dynamics with applications for predicting the consequences of habitat loss. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 255:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sutherland WJ, Parker GA (1985) Distribution of unequal competitors. In: Sibly RM, Smith RH (eds) Behavioural ecology—ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 255–273Google Scholar
  38. Taylor DL, Collie JS (2003) Effect of temperature on the functional response and foraging behavior of the sand shrimp Crangon septemspinosa preying on juvenile winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 263:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vahl WK, Van der Meer J, Weissing FJ, Van Dullemen D, Piersma T (2005) The mechanisms of interference competition: two experiments on foraging waders. Behav Ecol 16:845–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van der Meer J, Ens BJ (1997) Models of interference and their consequences for the spatial distribution of ideal and free predators. J Anim Ecol 66:846–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van der Meer J, Smallegange IM (2009) A stochastic version of the Beddington–DeAngelis functional response: modelling interference for a finite number of predators. J Anim Ecol 78:134–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Warner GF (1977) The biology of crabs. Paul Elek (Scientific Books) Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Yates GE, Broom M (2007) Stochastic models of kleptoparasitism. J Theor Biol 248:480–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine Ecology and EvolutionRoyal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ)Den BurgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Division of BiologyImperial College LondonAscotUK
  3. 3.Institute of Ecological ScienceFree UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations