Literature DB >> 17624958

Use, misuse and extensions of "ideal gas" models of animal encounter.

John M C Hutchinson1, Peter M Waser.   

Abstract

Biologists have repeatedly rediscovered classical models from physics predicting collision rates in an ideal gas. These models, and their two-dimensional analogues, have been used to predict rates and durations of encounters among animals or social groups that move randomly and independently, given population density, velocity, and distance at which an encounter occurs. They have helped to separate cases of mixed-species association based on behavioural attraction from those that simply reflect high population densities, and to detect cases of attraction or avoidance among conspecifics. They have been used to estimate the impact of population density, speeds of movement and size on rates of encounter between members of the opposite sex, between gametes, between predators and prey, and between observers and the individuals that they are counting. One limitation of published models has been that they predict rates of encounter, but give no means of determining whether observations differ significantly from predictions. Another uncertainty is the robustness of the predictions when animal movements deviate from the model's assumptions in specific, biologically relevant ways. Here, we review applications of the ideal gas model, derive extensions of the model to cover some more realistic movement patterns, correct several errors that have arisen in the literature, and show how to generate confidence limits for expected rates of encounter among independently moving individuals. We illustrate these results using data from mangabey monkeys originally used along with the ideal gas model to argue that groups avoid each other. Although agent-based simulations provide a more flexible alternative approach, the ideal gas model remains both a valuable null model and a useful, less onerous, approximation to biological reality.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17624958     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00014.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  38 in total

1.  Polyspecific associations of Cercopithecus campbelli and C. petaurista with C. diana: what are the costs and benefits?

Authors:  Paul J Buzzard
Journal:  Primates       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 2.163

2.  Long-term Site Fidelity and Individual Home Range Shifts in Lophocebus albigena.

Authors:  Karline R L Janmaat; William Olupot; Rebecca L Chancellor; Malgorzata E Arlet; Peter M Waser
Journal:  Int J Primatol       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 2.264

3.  Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics.

Authors:  Juan M Morales; Paul R Moorcroft; Jason Matthiopoulos; Jacqueline L Frair; John G Kie; Roger A Powell; Evelyn H Merrill; Daniel T Haydon
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 4.  Communal range defence in primates as a public goods dilemma.

Authors:  Erik P Willems; T Jean M Arseneau; Xenia Schleuning; Carel P van Schaik
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2015-12-05       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Stigmergy, collective actions, and animal social spacing.

Authors:  Luca Giuggioli; Jonathan R Potts; Daniel I Rubenstein; Simon A Levin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 6.  Hyperbolic and kinetic models for self-organized biological aggregations and movement: a brief review.

Authors:  Raluca Eftimie
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 2.259

7.  Sexual conflict and the evolution of asexuality at low population densities.

Authors:  Nina Gerber; Hanna Kokko
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Space-use scaling and home range overlap in primates.

Authors:  Fiona Pearce; Chris Carbone; Guy Cowlishaw; Nick J B Isaac
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Information limitation and the dynamics of coupled ecological systems.

Authors:  Andrew M Hein; Benjamin T Martin
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 15.460

10.  Why male orangutans do not kill infants.

Authors:  Lydia H Beaudrot; Sonya M Kahlenberg; Andrew J Marshall
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 2.980

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.