Figure 1
From: Filial cannibalism of Nabis pseudoferus is not evolutionarily optimal foraging strategy
Our model is run with the following illustrative parameters: \(y=23.5\); \(b=0.04\); \({\tau }_{a}=5.0\); \({\tau }_{b}=80.0\); \({\tau }_{s}=30.0\); \({k}_{3}=1\); \({k}_{4}=0.8\); \({k}_{5}=0.55\); \({a}_{3}=2\); \({a}_{4}=6\); and \({a}_{5}=11\). Observe that in this illustrative example of Fig. 1, the conspecific is more valuable food than the heterospecific prey. We numerically found which foraging strategy maximizes the here considered fitness notions. In the left panel, we found that the life reproductive success takes its maximum X(0.6667, 1) = 45.7286, while in the right panel, we found that the reproductive season growth rate (i.e. the number of descendants during one reproductive season) of Eve takes its maximum at different foraging strategies Z(0.3232, 0.9798) = 4.9949E + 6.
