The functional response, describing the relation between predator intake rate and prey density, is a pivotal concept to understand foraging behaviour and its consequences for community dynamics. Holling (1959a) introduced three types of functional responses according to their shapes, labelled I, II and III.  The type II, also known as the disc equation (Holling 1959b), has become popular among empiricists and theoreticians alike, due to its ability to describe predator intake saturation. The type III is often used to represent predator switching to other prey species when main prey density is low. 

Although theoretical works identify the linear functional response used in Lotka-Volterra models as a type I, Holling (1959a)’s type I model actually envisioned that at some threshold prey density, the linear increase in predator intake with prey density would give way to an upper predator intake limit, so that Holling’s type I has a rectilinear shape, with an angle joining straight lines. Ecology students can actually see this rectilinear shape reproduced in some texbooks, although not in textbook dynamical models, as they usually transition from Lotka-Volterra models to models with type II response. 

To many, the rectilinear shape of the original type I looks like a historical curiosity: the type II functional response accounts for intake rate saturation with a more convenient smooth function. 

Novak et al. (2025) turn this preconception on its head by first pedagogically showing that Holling’s original type I model can be obtained as a limit case of a variant of the celebrated type II model. The derivation follows up earlier work by Sjöberg (1980), which might be unfamiliar to readers outside aquatic ecology. The often untold assumption of the type II functional response model is that searching and handling prey are two exclusive behavioural processes, with predators that can only handle one prey item at a time. Allowing for several prey items to be handled at once while searching, until the predator reaches n prey items, the original type I functional response emerges as a limit case of the « multiprey » functional response as n goes to infinity. Interestingly, the multiprey response looks a lot like the original type I for large yet doable n. 

Novak et al. (2025) then proceed to look for the prevalence of such multiprey functional response shapes in a large database of functional responses (Uiterwaal et al. 2022). Combining linear type I and multiprey models (the asymptote may not always be visible), they find support for this revised type I hypothesis in about one-third of the cases. Although the type II and III models are still well supported by data, the results do suggest that linearity at low prey density may well be more frequent than one thinks. They complement this analysis by showing that larger predators relative to their prey tend to have larger n in the multiprey response. It is consistent with the hypothesis that the bigger you are relative to your prey, the more prey items you can handle at once.

Finally, Novak et al. (2025) investigate the consequences of the multiprey model for community dynamics. They find overall a richer dynamical behaviour than the Lotka-Volterra type I and common parameterizations of the type II, suggesting that observed linearity in some range of prey density does not necessarily translate in simpler dynamical behaviour. 

Novak et al. (2025) provide here a convincing and pedagogical study showing how seemingly benign behavioural assumptions can in fact profoundly alter the perceived relevance of community dynamics models. As they conclude, their analyses have lessons for future empirical functional response work, which should not necessarily dismiss the type I model and consider perhaps variants to the classical type II and III, as well as for future theoretical analyses, which could generalize this model to multiple prey species, or relax other behavioural assumptions.

References

Holling, C. S. (1959a). The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European Pine Sawfly. The Canadian Entomologist, 91(5), 293-320. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent91293-5 

Holling, C. S. (1959b). Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. The Canadian Entomologist, 91(7), 385-398. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent91385-7  

Novak, M., Coblentz, K. E., & DeLong, J. P (2025). In defense of the original Type I functional response: The frequency and population-dynamic effects of feeding on multiple prey at a time. bioRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.14.594210

Sjöberg, S. (1980). Zooplankton feeding and queueing theory. Ecological Modelling, 10(3-4), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(80)90060-5 

Uiterwaal, S. F., Lagerstrom, I. T., Lyon, S. R., & DeLong, J. P. (2022). FoRAGE database: A compilation of functional responses for consumers and parasitoids. Ecology, 103(7), e3706. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3706