12
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

SOME CRUCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF ADAPTIVE HABITAT SELECTION BY PREDATORS AND PREY: APPARENT MUTUALISMS, COMPETITIVE GHOSTS, HABITAT ABANDONMENT, AND SPATIAL STRUCTURE

Pages 207-232 | Published online: 14 Mar 2013

References

  • Holt, R.D., Gaines, M.S. 1992. Analysis of adaptations in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evol. Ecol. 6: 433-447.
  • Holt, R.D., Kotler, B.P. 1987. Short-term apparent competition. Am. Nat. 130: 412-430.
  • Abramsky, Z., Rosenzweig, M.L., Pinshow, B. 1991. The shape of a gerbil isocline measured using principles of optimal habitat selection. Ecology 72: 329-40.
  • Abramsky, Z., Rosenzweig, M.L., Subach, A. 1992. The shape of a gerbil isocline: an experimental field study. Oikos 63: 193-9.
  • Abramsky, Z., Ovadia, O., Rosenzweig, M.L. 1994. The shape of a Gerbillus pyramidum (Rodentia: Gerbillinae) isocline: an experimental field study. Oikos 69: 318-26.
  • Brown, J.H., Whitham, T.G., Ernest, S.K.M., Gehring, A. 2001. Complex species interactions and the dynamics of ecological systems: long-term experiments. Science 293: 643-650.
  • Brown, J.S., Pavlovic, N.B. 1992. Evolution in heterogeneous environments: effects of migration on habitat specialization. Evol. Ecol. 6: 360-382.
  • Brown, J.S., Rosenzweig, M.L. 1986. Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J. Theor. Biol. 123: 151-171.
  • Brown, J.S., Laundré, M.W., Gurung, M. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory and trophic interactions. J. Mammal. 80: 385-399.
  • Comins, H.N., Hassell, M.P. 1976. Predation in multi-prey communities. J. Theor. Biol. 62: 93-114.
  • Ernest, S.K.M., Brown, J.H. 2001. Delayed compensation for missing keystone species by colonization. Science 292: 101-104.
  • Fretwell, S.D. 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Fretwell, S.D., Lucas, H.L.Jr. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 14: 16-36.
  • Fryxell, J.M., Lundberg, P. 1998. Individual behavior and community dynamics. Chapman and Hall, London.
  • Grand, T.C. 2002. Foraging-predation risk trade-offs, habitat selection, and the coexistence of competitors. Am. Nat. 159: 106-112.
  • Grand, T.C., Dill, L. M. 1999. Predation risk, unequal competitors, and the ideal free distribution. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1: 389-409.
  • Hassell, M.P. 1978. Arthropod predator-prey systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Holling, C.S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385-98.
  • Holt, R.D. 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theor. Pop. Biol. 12: 197-229.
  • Oksanen, T., Power, M.E., Oksanen, L. 1995. Ideal free habitat selection and consumer-resource dynamics. Am. Nat. 146: 565-585.
  • Pimm, S.L., Rosenzweig, M.L. 1981. Competitors and habitat use. Oikos 37: 1-6.
  • Rodríguez, M.A. 1995. Habitat-specific estimates of competition in stream salmonids: a field test of the isodar model of habitat selection. Evol. Ecol. 9:169-184.
  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 1974. On the evolution of habitat selection. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Ecology, pp. 401-4.
  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 1981. A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62: 327-35.
  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 1985. Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. In: Cody, M. L., ed. Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, New York, pp. 517-540.
  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 1987. Habitat selection as a source of biological diversity. Evol. Ecol. 1: 315-330.
  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 1991. Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism. Am. Nat. 137: S5-28.
  • Rosenzweig, M.L., Abramsky, Z. 1986. Centrifugal community organization. Oikos 46: 339-348.
  • Ruxton, G.D., Humphries, S. 2003. Non-IFD movements: reflections on past work and prospects for future developments. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 155-157.
  • Svärdsson, G. 1949. Competition and habitat selection in birds. Oikos 1: 157-174.
  • Valone, T.J., Brown, J.H. 1995. Effects of competition, colonization, and extinction on rodent species diversity. Science 267: 880-883.
  • Vamosi, S.M. 2003. The presence of other fish species affects speciation in threespine stickle-backs. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 717-730.
  • Vamosi, S.M., Schluter, D. 2002. Impacts of trout predation on fitness of sympatric sticklebacks and their hybrids. Proc. R. Soc. London B 269: 923-930.
  • Abrams, P.A. 1996. Dynamics and interactions in food webs with adaptive foragers. In: Polis, G. A., Winemiller, K. O., eds. Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 113-121.
  • Abrams, P.A. 1999. The adaptive dynamics of consumer choice. Am. Nat. 153: 83-97.
  • Holt, R.D. 1984. Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. Am. Nat. 124: 377-406.
  • Holt, R.D. 1985. Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor. Pop. Biol. 28: 181-208.
  • Holt, R.D. 1993. Ecology at the mesoscale: the influence of regional processes on local communities. In: Ricklefs, R., Schluter, D., eds. Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 77-88.
  • Holt, R.D., Barfield, M. 2001. On the relationship between the ideal free distribution and the evolution of dispersal. In: Clobert, J., Danchin, E., Dhondt, A., Nichols, J. D., eds. Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 83-95.
  • Hugie, D.M., Dill, L.M. 1994. Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J. Fish Biol. 45 (Supp. A): 151-169.
  • Hugie, D.M., Grand, T.C. 2003. Movement between habitats by unequal competitors: effects of finite population size on ideal free distributions. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 131-153.
  • Krivan, V., Schmitz, O.J. 2003. Adaptive foraging and flexible food web topology. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 623-652.
  • Metz, J.A.J., Nisbet, R.M., Geritz, S.A.H. 1992. How should we define fitness for general ecological scenarios? Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 198-202.
  • Morin, P.J. 1999. Community ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
  • Morris, D.W. 1988. Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure. Evol. Ecol. 2: 253-69.
  • Morris, D.W. 1989. Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction. Oikos 55: 111-20.
  • Morris, D.W. 1999a. Has the ghost of competition passed? Evol. Ecol. Res. 1: 3-20.
  • Morris, D.W. 1999b. A haunting legacy from isoclines: mammal coexistence and the ghost of competition. J. Mammal. 80: 375-84.
  • Morris, D.W. 2003a. Shadows of predation: Habitat-selecting consumers eclipse competition between coexisting prey. Evol. Ecol. 17: 393-422.
  • Morris, D.W. 2003b. Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136: 1-13.
  • Morris, D.W. 2003c. How can we apply theories of habitat selection to wildlife conservation and management? Wildl. Res. 30: 1-17.
  • Morris, D.W., Davidson, D.L., Krebs, C.J. 2000a. Measuring the ghost of competition: insights from density-dependent habitat selection on the coexistence and dynamics of lemmings. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2: 41-67.
  • Morris, D.W., Fox, B.J., Luo, J., Monamy, V. 2000b. Habitat-dependent competition and the coexistence of Australian heathland rodents. Oikos 91: 294-306.
  • Morris, D.W., Diffendorfer, J.D., Lundberg, P. Dispersal among habitats varying in fitness: Source-sink dynamics, balanced dispersal or pulsed migration through ideal habitat selection? in press.
  • Nicholson, A.J., Bailey, V.A. 1935. The balance of animal populations, Part I. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 3: 551-598.
  • Oksanen, L., Fretweel, S.D., Arruda, J., Niemelä, P. 1981. Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am. Nat. 118: 240-261.
  • Oksanen, T. 1990. Exploitation ecosystems in heterogeneous habitat complexes. Evol. Ecol. 4: 220-234.
  • Oksanen, T., Oksanen, L., Gyllenberg, M. 1992. Exploitation ecosystems in heterogeneous habitat complexes. II. The impact of small-scale spatial heterogeneity on predator-prey dynamics. Evol. Ecol. 6: 383-398.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.