Publications
- Hammill, E., O. L. Petchey and B. R. Anholt In press. Predator functional response changed by induced defenses in prey. American Naturalist
- Miller, K. M., Li, S., Kaukinen, K., Ginther, N., Hammill, E., Curtis, J. M. R., Patterson, D., Siercinski, T., Donnison, L., Pavlidis, P., Hinch, S. G., Hruska, K., Cooke, S. J., English, K. K., and Farrell, A. P. 2011. Genomic signatures predict migration and spawning failure in wild salmon. Science 331 (6014): 214-217
- Hammill, E. and A. P. Beckerman 2010. Reciprocity in predator-prey interactions: exposure to defended prey and predation risk affects intermediate predator life history and morphology. Oecologia 163 193-202
- Hammill, E. Kratina, P., Beckerman, A. P. and Anholt, B. R 2010. Precise time interactions between behavioural and morphological defences. Oikos 119 494-499
- Kratina, P., E. Hammill and B. R. Anholt 2010. Stronger inducible defences enhance persistence of intraguild prey. Journal of Animal Ecology 79 993-999
Edd Hammill
Email:
Web page: Course co-ordinator for Biol 404
Supervisor: D. Srivastava
My research is currently investigating the relationship between predator-prey interactions and dispersal. In response to cues from predators, many species induce defences. A common defence is to reduce foraging and movement rates in the presences of predators. This reduces encounters with predators but also means that individuals may be less likely to colonise new areas. In a metapopulation setting, the induction of defences may make local extinctions less likely, but reduce the chances an area is re-colonised following an extinction.
« Back | Last updated 10 September 2010