Derivation of predator functional responses using a mechanistic approach in a natural system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The functional response is central to our understanding of any predator–prey system as it establishes the link between trophic levels. Most functional responses are evaluated using phenomenological models linking predator acquisition rate and prey density. However, our ability to measure functional responses using such an approach is often limited in natural systems and the use of inaccurate functions can profoundly affect the outcomes of population and community models. Here, we develop a mechanistic model based on extensive data to assess the functional response of a generalist predator, the arctic fox ( Vulpes lagopus ), to various tundra prey species (lemmings and the nests of geese, passerines and sandpipers). We found that predator acquisition rates derived from the mechanistic model were consistent with field observations. Although sigmoidal functional responses were previously used to model fox-prey population dynamics, none of our simulations resulted in a saturating response in all prey species. Our results highlight the importance of predator searching components in predator-prey interactions, especially predator speed, while predator acquisition rates were not limited by handling processes. By combining theory with field observations, our study provides evidences that predator acquisition rate is not systematically limited at the highest prey densities observed in a natural system. We reinforce the idea that functional response categories, typically types I, II, and III, should be considered as particular cases along a continuum. Specific functions derived with a mechanistic approach for a range of densities observed in natural communities should improve our ability to model and understand predator-prey systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".