Ecological Research

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 665–671 | Cite as

Individual behavioral variation in predator–prey models

Original Article

Abstract

The role of individual behavioral variation in community dynamics was studied. Behavioral variation in this study does not refer to differences in average responses (e.g., average response between presence and absence of antipredator behavior). Rather it refers to the variation around the average response that is not explained by trivial experimental treatments. First, the effect of behavioral variation was examined based on Jensen’s inequality. In cases of commonly used modeling framework with type II functional response, neglecting behavioral variation (a component of encounter rate) causes overestimation of predation effects. The effect of this bias on community processes was examined by incorporating the behavioral variation in a commonly used consumer-resource model (Rosenzweig–MacArthur model). How such a consideration affects a model prediction (paradox of enrichment) was examined. The inclusion of behavioral variation can both quantitatively and qualitatively alter the model characteristics. Behavioral variation can substantially increase the stability of the community with respect to enrichment.

Keywords

Jensen’s inequality Adaptive behavior Paradox of enrichment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Ben Bolker, Chris Jensen, and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments.

References

  1. Abrams PA (1992) Predators that benefit prey and prey that harm predators: unusual effects of interacting foraging adaptations. Am Nat 140:573–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams PA, Ginzburg LR (2000) The nature of predation: prey dependent, or ratio dependent or neither? Trends Ecol Evol 15:337–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrams PA, Vos M (2003) Adaptation, density dependence, and the abundances of trophic levels. Evol Ecol Res 5:1113–1132Google Scholar
  4. Abrams PA, Walters CJ (1996) Invulnerable prey and the paradox of enrichment. Ecology 77:1125–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen T, Elser JJ, Hessen DO (2004) Stoichiometry and population dynamics. Ecol Lett 7:884–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anholt BR, Werner E, Skelly DK (2000) Effect of food and predators on the activity of four larval ranid frogs. Ecology 81:3509–3521Google Scholar
  7. Barnes MC, Persons MH, Rypstra AL (2002) The effect of predator chemical cue age on antipredator behavior in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Aranae: Lycosidae). J Insect Behav 15:269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites and predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol 44:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bohannan BJM, Lenski RE (1997) Effect of resource enrichment on a chemostat community of bacteria and bacteriophage. Ecology 78:2303–2315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolker BM, Pacala SW, Levin SA (2000) Moment methods for stochastic processes in continuous space and time. In: Dieckmann U, Law R, Metz JAJ (eds) The geometry of ecological interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 388–411Google Scholar
  11. Bolker B, Holyoak M, Krivan V, Rowe L, Schmitz O (2003) Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84:1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Dall SRX, Giraldeau LA, Olsson O, McNamara JM, Stephens DW (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O’Neil RV (1975) A model for trophic interaction. Ecology 56:881–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Roos AM, Persson L, McCauley E (2003) The influence of size-dependent life history traits on the structure and dynamics of populations and communities. Ecol Lett 6:473–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fussmann GF, Ellner SP, Shertzner KW, Hairston NG Jr (2000) Crossing the Hopf bifurcation in a live predator-prey system. Science 290:1358–1360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Genkai-Kato M, Yamamura N (1999) Unpalatable prey resolves the paradox of enrichment. Proc R Soc London B 266:1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hastings A (1997) Population biology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398Google Scholar
  20. Inouye BD (2005) The importance of the variance around the mean effect size of ecological processes: comment. Ecology 86:262–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jensen CXJ, Ginzburg LR (2005) Paradoxes or theoretical failures? The jury is still out. Ecol Model 188:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kagawa Y, Maeto K (2007) Laboratory-based study on the predatory ability of Carabus yaconinus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on larvae of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl Entomol Zool 42:49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krebs JR, Erichsen JT, Webber MI, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal prey-selection by the great tit (Parus major). Anim Behav 25:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospects. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murdoch WW, Nisbet RM, McCauley E, deRoos AM, Gurney WSC (1998) Plankton abundance and dynamics across nutrient levels: tests of hypotheses. Ecology 79:1339–1356Google Scholar
  26. Murdoch WW, Briggs CJ, Nisbet RM (2003) Consumer-resource dynamics. Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. Putra NS, Yasuda H (2006) Effects of prey species and its density on larval performance of two species of hoverfly larvae, Episyrphus balteatus de Geer and Eupeodes corollae Fabricus (Diptera: Syrphidae). Appl Entomol Zool 41:389–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenzweig ML, MacArthur RH (1963) Graphical representation and stability condition for predator-prey interactions. Am Nat 97:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossi MN, Reigada C, Godoy WAC (2006) The effect of hunger level on predation dynamics in the spider Nesticodes rufipes: a functional response study. Ecol Res 21:617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruel JJ, Ayres MP (1999) Jensen’s inequality predicts effects of environmental variation. Trends Ecol Evol 14:361–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruxton GD (2005) Increasing search rate over time may cause a slower than expected increase in prey encounter rate with increasing prey density. Biol Lett 1:133–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stephens DW (1985) How important are partial preferences? Anim Behav 33:667–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Travis JMJ, Palmer SCF (2005) Spatial processes can determine the relationship between prey encounter rate and prey density. Biol Lett 1:136–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuljapurkar S, Caswell H (1997) Structured-population models in marine, terrestrial, and freshwater systems. Thomson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Turchin P (2003) Complex population dynamics: a theoretical/empirical synthesis. Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Vos M, Flik BJG, Vijverberg J, Ringelberg J, Mooij WM (2002) From inducible defences to population dynamics: modelling refuge use and life history changes in Daphnia. Oikos 99:386–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vos M, Kooi W, DeAngelis DL, Mooji WM (2004a) Inducible defenses and the paradox of enrichment. Oikos 105:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vos M, Verschoor AM, Wäckers FL, DeAngelis DL, Mooji WM (2004b) Inducible defenses and trophic structure. Ecology 85:2783–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations