Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:45:40.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A COMPARISON OF TWO MODELS OF THE FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE WITH EMPHASIS ON PARAMETER ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Norman R. Glass
Norman R. Glass
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The two primary functional response models extant in recent entomological literature were compared using a common set of data. Use of an iterative least squares parameter estimation routine was shown to be essential to a comparison of these two models. With parameters properly determined, the Watt model fit data on one out of five experiment days best, the Holling model fit data best on four out of five experiment days. The "handling time" submodel was shown to require iterative least squares parameter estimation rather than the usual log transformation and subsequent fitting of this logistic function by standard linear regression techniques. The conclusion was reached that if accuracy in prediction by nonlinear functional response models is desired, proper methods of determining parameter values are of critical importance.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 102 , Issue 9 , September 1970 , pp. 1094 - 1101
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1970

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

Conway, G. R., Glass, N. R., and Wilcox, J. C.. Fitting nonlinear models to biological data by Marquardt's algorithm. Ecology. (In press.)Google Scholar
Glass, N. R. 1967. A technique for fitting nonlinear models to biological data. Ecology 48: 1010–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, N. R. 1969. A discussion of the calculation of the power function with special reference to respiratory metabolism in fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 26(10): 2643–2650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1969. The importance of coincidence in the functional and numerical responses of two parasites of the European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer. Can. Ent. 101 (7): 673–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, K. J., and Holling, C. S.. 1969. A competition submodel for parasites and predators. Can. Ent. 101 (8): 785–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959 a. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Ent. 91: 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959 b. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquardt, D. W. 1963. An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J. Soc. Ind. App. Math. 11: 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wan, K. E. F. 1959. A mathematical model for the effect of density of attacked and attacking species on the number attacked. Can. Ent. 91: 129–144.Google Scholar
Wan, K. E. F. 1961. Mathematical models for use in insect pest control. Can. Ent. Suppl. 19.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1968. Calculation and miscalculation of the allometric equation as a model in biological data. Bioscience 18 (12): 1118–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar