Modelling predation: Theoretical criteria and empirical evaluation of functional form equations for predator-prey systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correct modelling of relationships between predators and prey is crucial to ecological and population dynamics models. However, and despite a long-standing competition between ratio and prey-dependent models (and a few alternative intermediate forms) in the literature, most equations currently used to represent such relationships do not meet theoretical criteria for biological consistency. This research proposes a set of universally applicable criteria for all predation equations and shows that the most commonly used predation equations in the literature fail to meet these same criteria. We follow with a proposal for a new predation equation that does meet these criteria, which combines both prey and ratio-dependent concepts while giving reasonable predictions in the cases of both high predator or high prey densities. We show its empirical performance by applying the new equation, along with existing alternatives, to various experimental predation datasets from the literature. Results show that the new equation is not only more mathematically consistent than existing equations, but also performs more consistently empirically across different datasets from various ecological situations. This research is the first to propose a systematic set of criteria to evaluate predation equations and then to offer an equation that meets these criteria and also performs well both theoretically and empirically across datasets from a wide range of predation 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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".