Systematic bias in studies of consumer functional responses

Functional responses are a cornerstone to our understanding of consumer-resource interactions, so how to best describe them using models has been actively debated. Here we focus on the consumer dependence of functional responses to evidence systematic bias in the statistical comparison of functional-response models and the estimation of their parameters. Both forms of bias are universal to nonlinear models (irrespective of consumer dependence) and are rooted in a lack of sufficient replication. Using a large compilation of published datasets, we show that – due to the prevalence of low sample size studies – neither the overall frequency by which alternative models achieve top rank nor the frequency distribution of parameter point estimates should be treated as providing insight into the general form or central tendency of consumer interference. We call for renewed clarity in the varied purposes that motivate the study of functional responses, purposes that can compete with each other in dictating the design, analysis, and interpretation of functional-response experiments.

Nonlinear functional responses and ecological pleiotropy alter the strength of disruptive selection in consumers

Much of the theory on disruptive selection has focused on selection in generalist consumers caused by ecological opportunity through the availability of alternative resources and intraspecific competition for those resources. This theory, however, makes several ecologically unrealistic assumptions. First, this theory assumes that consumers have a linear, resource-dependent functional response, ignoring well-documented effects of resource handling times and consumer dependence. Second, this theory assumes that the trait under selection only influences the percapita attack rates of the consumer, ignoring other effects of the trait that may influence feeding rates and hence fitness. Here, I develop a one consumer-two resource model to investigate how nonlinear functional responses and ecological pleiotropy (traits that have multiple simultaneous ecological effects) influence the strength of disruptive selection. I find that handling times and interference among consumers are capable of altering disruptive selection by changing feeding rates differentially across consumer phenotypes. In particular, handling times cause a decrease in the strength of disruptive selection while the effects of interference depend on the mechanism through which interference occurs. The effects of handling times and interference, however, are dependent on whether and how ecological pleiotropy causes correlations between handling times or interference rates and attack rates. Overall, my results suggest that features defining the functional responses of consumers and the relationships among those features determine the likelihood and strength of disruptive selection. In particular, disruptive selection should be strongest in generalist populations composed of individual diet specialists who experience lower handling times and interference rates on the resources for which their attack rates are highest.