» Articles » PMID: 17624958

Use, Misuse and Extensions of "ideal Gas" Models of Animal Encounter

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2007 Jul 13
PMID 17624958
Citations 48
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Slower swimming promotes chemotactic encounters between bacteria and small phytoplankton.

Foffi R, Brumley D, Peaudecerf F, Stocker R, Slomka J Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025; 122(2):e2411074122.

PMID: 39792290 PMC: 11745318. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2411074122.


Cameras or ? Comparing Snow Track Surveys and Camera Traps to Estimate Densities of Unmarked Wildlife Populations.

Waller S, Hebblewhite M, Brodie J, Soutyrina S, Miquelle D Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(12):e70747.

PMID: 39717633 PMC: 11664323. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70747.


A wrap-around movement path randomization method to distinguish social and spatial drivers of animal interactions.

Gahm K, Nguyen R, Acacio M, Anglister N, Vaadia G, Spiegel O Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2024; 379(1912):20220531.

PMID: 39230446 PMC: 11449205. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0531.


Variation in local population size predicts social network structure in wild songbirds.

Beck K, Farine D, Firth J, Sheldon B J Anim Ecol. 2023; 92(12):2348-2362.

PMID: 37837224 PMC: 10952437. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.14015.


When death comes: linking predator-prey activity patterns to timing of mortality to understand predation risk.

Shiratsuru S, Studd E, Boutin S, Peers M, Majchrzak Y, Menzies A Proc Biol Sci. 2023; 290(1999):20230661.

PMID: 37192667 PMC: 10188243. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.0661.