The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Switching in General Predators: Experiments on Predator Specificity and Stability of Prey Populations
Abstract
"Switching" in predators which attack several prey species potentially can stabilize the numbers in prey populations. In switching, the number of attacks upon a species is disproportionately large when the species is abundant relative to other prey, and disproportionately small when the species is relatively rare. The null case for two prey species can be written: P 1/P 2 = cN 1/N 2, where P 1/P 2 is the ratio of the two prey expected in the diet, N 1/N 2 is the ratio given and c is a proportionality constant. Predators were sea—shore snails and prey were mussels and barnacles. Experiments in the laboratory modelled aspects of various natural situations. When the predator had a strong preference (c) between prey the data and the "null case" model were in good agreement. Preference could not altered by subjecting predators to training regimens. When preference was weak the data did not fit the model replicates were variable. Predators could be trained easily to one or other prey species. From a number of experiments it was concluded that in the weak—preference case no switch would occur in nature except where there is an opportunity for predators to become trained to the abundant species. A patchy distribution of the abundant prey could provide this opportunity. Given one prey species, snails caused a decreasing percentage mortality as prey numbers increased. This occurred also with 2 prey species present when preference was strong. When preference was weak the form of the response was unclear. When switching occurred the percentage prey mortality increased with prey density, giving potentially stabilizing mortality. The consequences of these conclusions for prey population regulation and for diversity are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics
Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173179 · Cited by 5,502
Original Articles: Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale
Peterson, G., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (1998) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s100219900002 · Cited by 1,547
Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies
Senft, R. L., Coughenour, M. B., Bailey, D. W., Rittenhouse, L. R., Sala, O. E., & Swift, D. M. (1987) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1310545 · Cited by 1,156
Predation on eggs and larvae of marine fishes and the recruitment problem
Bailey, K. M., & Houde, E. D. (1989) · Advances in Marine Biology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2881(08)60187-x · Cited by 1,051
The Roles of Harsh and Fluctuating Conditions in the Dynamics of Ecological Communities
Chesson, P., & Huntly, N. (1997) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/286080 · Cited by 873
Metadata
- Authors
- Murdoch, W. W.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1969-09
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 335-354
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2032839068
- Cited by
- 1,371
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Switching in General Predators: Experiments on Predator Specificity and Stability of Prey Populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942352
- The paper
- Murdoch, W. W. (1969). Switching in General Predators: Experiments on Predator Specificity and Stability of Prey Populations. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942352
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.