title: Sensory information and encounter rates of interacting species.
abstract: Most motile organisms use sensory cues when searching for resources, mates, or prey. The searcher measures sensory data and adjusts its search behavior based on those data. Yet, classical models of species encounter rates assume that searchers move independently of their targets. This assumption leads to the familiar mass action-like encounter rate kinetics typically used in modeling species interactions. Here we show that this common approach can mischaracterize encounter rate kinetics if searchers use sensory information to search actively for targets. We use the example of predator-prey interactions to illustrate that predators capable of long-distance directional sensing can encounter prey at a rate proportional to prey density to the [Formula: see text] power (where [Formula: see text] is the dimension of the environment) when prey density is low. Similar anomalous encounter rate functions emerge even when predators pursue prey using only noisy, directionless signals. Thus, in both the high-information extreme of long-distance directional sensing, and the low-information extreme of noisy non-directional sensing, encounter rate kinetics differ qualitatively from those derived by classic theory of species interactions. Using a standard model of predator-prey population dynamics, we show that the new encounter rate kinetics derived here can change the outcome of species interactions. Our results demonstrate how the use of sensory information can alter the rates and outcomes of physical interactions in biological systems.
authors: Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America. amhein@ufl.edu
authors: Andrew M
authors: AM
authors: Hein
authors: Scott A
authors: SA
authors: McKinley
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D019295:Computational Biology / Q000379:methods*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D008954:Models, Biological; D011235:Predatory Behavior / Q000502:physiology*; D012677:Sensation / Q000502:physiology*
references: Chem Senses. 2006 Feb;31(2):167-79
references: 16339265
references: Nature. 2007 Oct 25;449(7165):1041-3
references: 17960242
references: Nature. 1999 Oct 28;401(6756):911-4
references: 10553906
references: J R Soc Interface. 2011 Nov 7;8(64):1665-72
references: 21571944
references: Nature. 2007 Jan 25;445(7126):406-9
references: 17251974
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47906
references: 23144712
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Dec 9;105(49):19072-7
references: 19060198
references: J Exp Biol. 2007 Jun;210(Pt 11):1925-34
references: 17515418
references: Bull Math Biol. 2010 May;72(4):896-913
references: 19915924
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 19;106(20):8245-50
references: 19416811
references: Stat Med. 2003 Oct 15;22(19):3055-71
references: 12973787
references: Nature. 1998 Apr 23;392(6678):807-11
references: 9572138
references: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:535-74
references: 17600525
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 25;105(12):4576-81
references: 18326025
references: Science. 1971 Jan 29;171(3969):385-7
references: 5538935
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Feb 7;271 Suppl 3:S85-7
references: 15101427
references: Biol Lett. 2012 Jun 23;8(3):438-41
references: 22158738
references: Nature. 2007 Oct 25;449(7165):1044-8
references: 17960243
references: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 Aug;82(3):335-59
references: 17624958
references: J Exp Biol. 2011 Sep 15;214(Pt 18):3138-53
references: 21865526
references: Science. 2012 Feb 24;335(6071):918; author reply 918
references: 22362991
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 24;109(30):12070-4
references: 22778446