A critique of the Lotka Volterra predator prey model

Duncan Golicher

The Lotka Volterra predator prey model

\(\frac{dN}{dt} =r_{prey}N-\alpha NP\)

\(\frac{dP}{dt} =\alpha \beta NP- m_{predator}P\)

Where N = number of prey, \(r_{prey}\) = intrinsic growth rate of prey, \(\alpha\) = proportion of encounters between prey and predator leading to mortality of prey, P= numbers of predators \(\beta\) = conversion of prey to predator and \(m_{predator}\) = predator mortality rate

https://insightmaker.com/insight/4DYFdNOfy5alJd395LWc12/Lotka-volterra

Lotka Volterra model

What is assumed in the classic model?

Is this model useful?

Is the evidence compelling?

Are prey regulated by “bottom up” factors?

What happens in more complex systems?

Which elements in the prey population are most exposed to predation?

Conditions that weaken prey may be good for predators

Evolutionary “arms races”

Predators vs scavengers

Other forms of predation

Functional response

Functional response

What does coexistence of predators and prey imply?

Humans as predators

Impact of hunting

So, where does this leave the Lotka Volterra model?

What does this imply regarding models in general?

Are other models helpful?

References

Deng, Bo. 2018. “An Inverse Problem: Trappers Drove Hares to Eat Lynx.” Acta Biotheoretica 66 (3): 213–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-018-9333-z.
Gilpin, Michael E. 1973. “Do Hares Eat Lynx?” The American Naturalist 107 (957): 727–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/282870.