↓ Skip to main content

Group formation stabilizes predator–prey dynamics

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
187 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
699 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Group formation stabilizes predator–prey dynamics
Published in
Nature, October 2007
DOI 10.1038/nature06177
Pubmed ID
Authors

John M. Fryxell, Anna Mosser, Anthony R. E. Sinclair, Craig Packer

Abstract

Theoretical ecology is largely founded on the principle of mass action, in which uncoordinated populations of predators and prey move in a random and well-mixed fashion across a featureless landscape. The conceptual core of this body of theory is the functional response, predicting the rate of prey consumption by individual predators as a function of predator and/or prey densities. This assumption is seriously violated in many ecosystems in which predators and/or prey form social groups. Here we develop a new set of group-dependent functional responses to consider the ecological implications of sociality and apply the model to the Serengeti ecosystem. All of the prey species typically captured by Serengeti lions (Panthera leo) are gregarious, exhibiting nonlinear relationships between prey-group density and population density. The observed patterns of group formation profoundly reduce food intake rates below the levels expected under random mixing, having as strong an impact on intake rates as the seasonal migratory behaviour of the herbivores. A dynamical system model parameterized for the Serengeti ecosystem (using wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) as a well-studied example) shows that grouping strongly stabilizes interactions between lions and wildebeest. Our results suggest that social groups rather than individuals are the basic building blocks around which predator-prey interactions should be modelled and that group formation may provide the underlying stability of many ecosystems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 699 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 2%
Brazil 12 2%
United Kingdom 8 1%
India 6 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
France 4 <1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Other 23 3%
Unknown 617 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 166 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 142 20%
Student > Master 103 15%
Student > Bachelor 55 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 43 6%
Other 122 17%
Unknown 68 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 390 56%
Environmental Science 110 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 24 3%
Physics and Astronomy 14 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 2%
Other 50 7%
Unknown 100 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2021.
All research outputs
#5,803,981
of 23,692,259 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#61,034
of 92,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,810
of 73,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#329
of 520 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,692,259 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 100.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 73,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 520 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.