Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T08:51:50.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PREDATOR–PREY MODELS WITH ADDED MORTALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

H. Barclay  and
P. van den Driessche
H. Barclay
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia
P. van den Driessche
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several predator–prey models are examined to assess the generality of Volterra’s contention that an external mortality imposed simultaneously on both predators and prey results in a decrease in predators and an increase in prey equilibrium numbers. The models indicate that this phenomenon occurs mainly as a result of the lack of predator crowding. If predator crowding occurs, a strong functional response of predators to prey density, or light prey mortality relative to predator mortality, is required for Volterra’s phenomenon to occur. In increasing populations away from equilibrium, numerical results indicate conditions for Volterra’s phenomenon to occur.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 5 , May 1977 , pp. 763 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

DeBach, P. (Ed.) 1964. Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Reinhold, New York. 844 pp.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. (Ed.) 1974. Biological control by natural enemies. Cambridge University Press. 323 pp.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. and Smith, H. S.. 1941. Are population oscillations inherent in the host-parasite relation? Ecology 22: 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 48. 85 pp.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. (Ed.) 1971. Biological control. Plenum Press, New York. 511 pp.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. and Kennett, C. E.. 1956. Experimental studies on predation: predation and cyclamen-mite populations on strawberries in California. Hilgardia 26(4): 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, P. A. 1963. Interspecific competition and exploitation. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 20(3): 647–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. M. 1973. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton University Press. 235 pp.Google ScholarPubMed
Newson, L. D. 1967. Consequences of insecticides use on non-target organisms. A. Rev. Ent. 12: 257–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1969. An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley Interscience. 286 pp.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. 1971. Ecological effects of pesticides on non-target species. Executive Office of The President, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.220 pp.Google Scholar
Riebesell, J. F. 1974. Paradox of enrichment in competitive systems. Ecology 55: 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripper, W. E. 1956. Effect of pesticides on balance of arthropod populations. A. Rev. Ent. 1: 403–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1969. Why a prey curve has a hump. Am. Nat. 103: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volterra, V. 1931. Variations and fluctuations of the number of individuals in animal species living together, pp. 409–448. In R. Chapman, Animal ecology. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar