Improving the assessment of predator functional responses by considering alternate prey and predator interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve understanding of the complex and variable patterns of predator foraging behavior in natural systems, it is critical to determine how density-dependent predation and predator hunting success are mediated by alternate prey or predator interference. Despite considerable theory and debate seeking to place predator-prey interactions in a more realistic context, few empirical studies have quantified the role of alternate prey or intraspecific interactions on predator-prey dynamics. We assessed functional responses of two similarly sized, sympatric carnivores, lynx (Lynx canadensis) and coyotes (Canis latrans), foraging on common primary (snowshoe hares; Lepus americanus) and alternate (red squirrels; Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) prey in a natural system. Lynx exhibited a hyperbolic prey-dependent response to changes in hare density, which is characteristic of predators relying primarily on a single prey species. In contrast, the lynx-squirrel response was found to be linear ratio dependent, or inversely dependent on hare density. The coyote-hare and coyote-squirrel interactions also were linear and influenced by predator density. We explain these novel results by apparent use of spatial and temporal refuges by prey, and the likelihood that predators commonly experience interference and lack of satiation when foraging. Our study provides empirical support from a natural predator-prey system that (1) predation rate may not be limited at high prey densities when prey are small or rarely captured; (2) interference competition may influence the predator functional response; and (3) predator interference has a variable role across different prey types. Ultimately, distinct functional responses of predators to different prey types illustrates the complexity associated with predator-prey interactions in natural systems and highlights the need to investigate predator behavior and predation rate in relation to the broader ecological community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".