Patterns in predator interference

Type: Literature & Meta-study
Degree: Suitable for Master thesis
Description: Feeding interactions are most often described as a prey density dependent function, the functional response (1). Most laboratory studies focused on the type 2 functional response, a hyperbolic saturating function (2). One issue with this formulation is that the performance of predators can not change with predator density, even if mechanisms like group hunting (e.g. wolves) are known to occur. Different studies have extended Holling's formulation with the addition of a predator term (e.g. references (3–7)) and meta-studies have highlighted the importance of predator interference. In addition, simulations have shown that interference is a dominant driver of food-web stability (8). Functional response parameters like handling time and attack rates are already linked to taxonomy, body mass and temperature (9–12). In contrast, knowledge about how interference might scale with body mass, temperature or other biological traits like taxonomy or foraging strategy (sit and wait vs. active searchers) is currently unknown.
You will fill that gap by performing a comprehensive literature search and subsequent data analysis the data.
Requirements: You should be interested in ecological principles such as Foraging Theory. Moreover, experience in literature mining using ISI Web of Science or Google Scholar as well as experience in the statistical software “R” are beneficial.
Start Date: Anytime
Contact: Björn Rall, Amrei Binzer & Anthony I. Dell
Literature:
1. Holling CS. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Canad. Entomol. 1959;91(7):385–98.
2. Skalski GT, Gilliam JF. Functional responses with predator interference: viable alternatives to the holling type II model. Ecology. 2001 Nov;82(11):3083–92.
3. Beddington JR. Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. Journal of Animal Ecology. 1975 Feb;44(1):331–40.
4. De Angelis DL, Goldstein RA, O’Neill RV. A model for trophic interaction. Ecology. 1975 Jul;56(4):881–92.
5. Crowley PH, Martin EK. Functional Responses and Interference within and between Year Classes of a Dragonfly Population. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 1989 Sep;8(3):211.
6. Arditi R, Akçakaya HR. Underestimation of mutual interference of predators. Oecologia. 1990;83(3):358–61.
7. Hassell MP, Varley GC. New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control. Nature. 1969 Sep 13;223(5211):1133–7.
8. Rall BC, Guill C, Brose U. Food-web connectance and predator interference dampen the paradox of enrichment. Oikos. 2008;117(2):202–13.
9. Rall BC, Brose U, Hartvig M, Kalinkat G, Schwarzmüller F, Vucic-Pestic O, et al. Universal temperature and body-mass scaling of feeding rates. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2012 May 11;367(1605):2923–34.
10. Englund G, Öhlund G, Hein CL, Diehl S. Temperature dependence of the functional response. Ecol. Lett. 2011 Sep 1;14(9):914–21.
11. Hansen P, Bjornsen P, Hansen B. Zooplankton grazing and growth: Scaling within the 2-2,000-mu m body size range. Limnol. Oceangr. 1997 Jun;42(4):687–704.
12. Pawar S, Dell AI, Savage VM. Dimensionality of consumer search space drives trophic interaction strengths. Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):485–9.