title: Predator interference and stability of predator-prey dynamics.
abstract: Predator interference, that is, a decline in the per predator consumption rate as predator density increases, is generally thought to promote predator-prey stability. Indeed, this has been demonstrated in many theoretical studies on predator-prey dynamics. In virtually all of these studies, the stabilization role is demonstrated as a weakening of the paradox of enrichment. With predator interference, stable limit cycles that appear as a result of environmental enrichment occur for higher values of the environmental carrying capacity of prey, and even a complete absence of the limit cycles can happen. Here we study predator-prey dynamics using the Rosenzweig-MacArthur-like model in which the Holling type II functional response has been replaced by a predator-dependent family which generalizes many of the commonly used descriptions of predator interference. By means of a bifurcation analysis we show that sufficiently strong predator interference may bring about another stabilizing mechanism. In particular, hysteresis combined with (dis)appearance of stable limit cycles imply abrupt increases in both the prey and predator densities and enhanced persistence and resilience of the predator-prey system. We encourage refitting the previously collected data on predator consumption rates as well as for conducting further predation experiments to see what functional response from the explored family is the most appropriate.
authors.affiliation: Section of Applied Mathematics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 611 37, Brno, Czech Republic, pribylova@math.muni.cz.
authors.forename: Lenka
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Přibylová
authors.forename: Luděk
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Berec
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D019295:Computational Biology; D017753:Ecosystem; D020387:Food Chain; D055641:Mathematical Concepts; D008954:Models, Biological; D011157:Population Dynamics
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Oct 25;449(7165):1041-3
references.pmid: 17960242
references.citation: Bull Math Biol. 2010 Jan;72(1):94-121
references.pmid: 19697089
references.citation: Biol Lett. 2006 Dec 22;2(4):491-3
references.pmid: 17148270
references.citation: Math Biosci Eng. 2008 Jul;5(3):567-83
references.pmid: 18616359
references.citation: Math Biosci. 1999 Jan 1;155(1):61-75
references.pmid: 10024835
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2007 Aug;72(1):136-47
references.pmid: 17296212
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 2004 May;65(3):299-315
references.pmid: 15139366
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2004 Apr 7;227(3):349-58
references.pmid: 15019502
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2010 Jun 7;264(3):787-98
references.pmid: 20227422
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2004 Mar 21;227(2):167-74
references.pmid: 14990381
references.citation: PLoS One. 2008 Jul 16;3(7):e2687
references.pmid: 18628951
references.citation: Science. 1971 Jan 29;171(3969):385-7
references.pmid: 5538935
references.citation: Am Nat. 2009 Jan;173(1):72-88
references.pmid: 19072071
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Oct 11;413(6856):591-6
references.pmid: 11595939
references.citation: Theor Popul Biol. 1999 Aug;56(1):65-75
references.pmid: 10438669