RATIO-DEPENDENT PREDATION - AN ABSTRACTION THAT WORKS
RATIO-DEPENDENT PREDATION - AN ABSTRACTION THAT WORKS
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/1939362
复制
发表时间：
1995-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
GINZBURG, LR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
AKCAKAYA, HR;ARDITI, R;GINZBURG, LR
最近反对比率依赖的论文集中在四个主要批评：(1)我们提出的经验证据不足或有偏见；(2)比率依赖模型表现出病态行为；(3)比率依赖缺乏逻辑或机制基础；(4)更一般的模型同时包含猎物和比率依赖，不需要两者中的任何一个简化。我们根据实地和实验研究的经验证据来回顾这些论点。我们认为：(1)经验证据表明，大多数自然系统更接近于比例依赖，而不是猎物依赖；(2)数学意义上的“病态”动力学不仅是现实的，而且在猎物依赖模型中缺乏这种动力学实际上使它们在生物学意义上是病态的；(3)比例依赖的机制基础是（直接和间接）干扰和资源共享。(4)尽管更一般的模型（带有额外的参数）永远不能比猎物依赖模型或比例依赖模型更差地拟合自然模式，但从理论上、实践上和教学上都有理由试图找到能够捕捉自然系统基本动态的更简单的模型。
Recent papers opposing ratio dependence focus on four main criticisms: (1) the empirical evidence we present is insufficient or biased, (2) ratio-dependent models exhibit pathological behavior, (3) ratio dependence lacks a logical or mechanistic base, and (4) more general models incorporate both prey and ratio dependence and there is no need for either of the two simplifications. We review these arguments in the light of empirical evidence from field and experimental studies. We argue that (1) empirical evidence shows that most natural systems are closer to ratio dependence than to prey dependence, (2) ''pathological'' dynamics in a mathematical sense is not only realistic, but the lack of such dynamics in prey-dependent models actually makes them pathological in a biological sense, (3) the mechanistic base of ratio dependence is (direct and indirect) interference and resource sharing, and (4) although more general models (with extra parameters) can never fit natural patterns worse than either prey- or ratio-dependent models, there are theoretical, practical, and pedagogical reasons for attempting to find simpler models that can capture the essential dynamics of natural systems.