Skip to main content
Log in

The Role of Space in the Exploitation of Resources

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to understand the role of space in ecological communities where each species produces a certain type of resource and has varying abilities to exploit the resources produced by its own species and by the other species, we carry out a comparative study of an interacting particle system and its mean-field approximation. For a wide range of parameter values, we show both analytically and numerically that the spatial model results in predictions that significantly differ from its nonspatial counterpart, indicating that the use of the mean-field approach to describe the evolution of communities in which individuals only interact locally is invalid. In two-species communities, the disagreements between the models appear either when both species compete by producing resources that are more beneficial for their own species or when both species cooperate by producing resources that are more beneficial for the other species. In particular, while both species coexist if and only if they cooperate in the mean-field approximation, the inclusion of space in the form of local interactions may prevent coexistence even in cooperative communities. Introducing additional species, cooperation is no longer the only mechanism that promotes coexistence. We prove that, in three-species communities, coexistence results either from a global cooperative behavior, or from rock-paper-scissors type interactions, or from a mixture of these dynamics, which excludes in particular all cases in which two species compete. Finally, and more importantly, we show numerically that the inclusion of space has antagonistic effects on coexistence depending on the mechanism involved, preventing coexistence in the presence of cooperation but promoting coexistence in the presence of rock-paper-scissors interactions. Although these results are partly proved analytically for both models, we also provide somewhat more explicit heuristic arguments to explain the reason why the models result in different predictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Clifford, P., & Sudbury, A. (1973). A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika, 60, 581–588.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. T. (1989). Coalescing random walks and voter model consensus times on the torus in ℤd. Ann. Probab., 17, 1333–1366.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. T., & Griffeath, D. (1986). Diffusive clustering in the two-dimensional voter model. Ann. Probab., 14, 347–370.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Durrett, R., & Levin, S. A. (1994). Stochastic spatial models: a user’s guide to ecological applications. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B, 343, 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durrett, R., & Levin, S. A. (1994). The importance of being discrete (and spatial). Theor. Popul. Biol., 46, 363–394.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Erdős, P., & Ney, P. (1974). Some problems on random intervals and annihilating particles. Ann. Probab., 2, 828–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Holley, R. A., & Liggett, T. M. (1975). Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting systems and the voter model. Ann. Probab., 3, 643–663.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker, C. B. (1958). Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations. Hilgardia, 27, 343–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutson, V. (1984). A theorem on average Liapunov functions. Monatshefte Math., 98, 267–275.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lanchier, N. (2011). Two-strategy games on the lattice. Preprint.

  • Lanchier, N., & Neuhauser, C. (2009). Spatially explicit non Mendelian diploid model. Ann. Appl. Probab., 19, 1880–1920.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Liggett, T. M. (1994). Coexistence in threshold voter models. Ann. Probab., 22, 764–802.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Neuhauser, C. (2001). Mathematical challenges in spatial ecology. Not. Am. Math. Soc., 48, 1304–1314.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Neuhauser, C., & Pacala, S. W. (1999). An explicitly spatial version of the Lotka–Volterra model with interspecific competition. Ann. Appl. Probab., 9, 1226–1259.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. (1978). On hitting probabilities for an annihilating particle model. Ann. Probab., 6, 398–403.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sinervo, B., & Lively, C. M. (1996). The Rock-Paper-Scissors Game and the evolution of alternative male strategies. Nature, 380, 240–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Kang.

Additional information

Research of N. Lanchier supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-10-05282.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kang, Y., Lanchier, N. The Role of Space in the Exploitation of Resources. Bull Math Biol 74, 1–44 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-011-9649-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-011-9649-1

Keywords

Navigation