Abstract
Summary 1. Ginzburg (1998) proposes that models of predator–prey interactions should conform to what he calls the ‘biomass conversion principle’, that consumer reproduction should be directly linked to resource consumption. 2. I argue that consumer–resource models can be built from two different perspectives – biomass conversion or individual survival – and that, as Ginzburg's principle only applies to the first, it should not be used to judge the plausibility of individual survival models. 3. I also suggest that a failure to understand and preserve the distinction between biomass consumption and individual survival may be responsible for much of the confusion and controversy in predator–prey theory.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
