Oecologia

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 23–34 | Cite as

The interaction between spatial heterogeneity and genetic feedback in laboratory predator-prey systems

  • J. Daniel Udovic
  • David Pimentel
  • Donald Nafus
Article
Received:

Summary

A hybrid experimental design combining laboratory populations and computer simulation was used to study the relative influence of spatial heterogeneity, genetic feedback and predator foraging behavior on the stability of predator-prey systems. Houseflies, Musca domestica, maintained in multicellular or single-cell population cages were used as predator feeding on chemical solutions contained in small glass vials. Feeding, mortality and dispersal of the predators occurred within the cages, but reproduction of the predators and prey as well as dispersal of the prey was controlled by a computer program. Genetic change in the prey was determined partially by the computer model which associated chemical solutions with particular genotypes, and partially by the predators, whose foraging behavior influenced the fitness of each genotype. Three treatments were compared: a genetically polymorphic prey population in a spatially homogeneous environment, a monomorphic prey population in a heterogeneous environment, and a polymorphic prey population in a heterogeneous environment. With the parameters used, the latter treatment, involving an interaction between spatial heterogeneity and genetic feedback, was the most stable. Without genetic feedback in the prey, spatial heterogeneity was insufficient to overcome the destabilizing influence of the predator's foraging behavior. Without spatial heterogeneity, genetic feedback was insufficient to overcome the destabilizing effect of preferential feeding by the predators on palatable prey. The prey population evolved sufficient resistance to cause extinction of the predator population. The results support the hypothesis that population regulation by genetic feedback in predator-prey systems is less likely when predators feed preferentially on susceptible prey and that spatial heterogeneity, by decreasing the relative accessibility of susceptible prey and hence altering the predator's foraging strategy, may increase the likelihood of regulation through genetic feedback.

Keywords

Spatial Heterogeneity Chemical Solution Heterogeneous Environment Prey Population Destabilize Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gause, G.F.: The struggle for existency, 163 pp. Baltimore: Williams and Williams 1934Google Scholar
  2. Hassell, M.P., May, R.M.: Stability in insect host-parasite models. J. anim. Ecol. 42, 693–726 (1973)Google Scholar
  3. Holling, C.S.: The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European Pine Sawfly. Canad. Entomol. 91, 293–320 (1959)Google Scholar
  4. Huffaker, C.B.: Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations. Hilgandia 27, 343–383 (1958)Google Scholar
  5. Lack, D.: Population studies of birds, 341 pp. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1966Google Scholar
  6. Levin, S.A.: A mathematical analysis of the genetic feedback mechanism. Amer. Naturalist 106, 145–164 (1972)Google Scholar
  7. Levin, S.A.: Dispersion and population interactions. Amer. Naturalist 108, 207–228 (1974)Google Scholar
  8. May, R.M.: Stability and complexity in model ecosystems, 235 pp. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press 1973Google Scholar
  9. Murdoch, W.W., Oaten, A.: Predation and population stability. Advanc. Ecol. Res. 9, 1–131 (1975)Google Scholar
  10. Pimentel, D.: Animal population regulation by the genetic feedback mechanism. Amer. Naturalist 95, 65–79 (1961)Google Scholar
  11. Pimentel, D.: Natural population regulation and interspecies evolution. XVI Internat. Cong. of Zool. 3, 329–336 (1963)Google Scholar
  12. Pimentel, D., Al-Hafidh, R.: The coexistence of insect parasites and hosts in laboratory ecosystems. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 56, 676–678 (1963)Google Scholar
  13. Pimentel, D., Levin, S.A., Soans, A.B.: On the evolution of energy balance in some exploiter-victim systems. Ecol. 56, 381–390 (1975)Google Scholar
  14. Pimentel, D., Nagel, W.P., Madden, J.L.: Space-time structure of the environment and the survival of parasite-host systems. Amer. Naturalist 97, 141–167 (1963)Google Scholar
  15. Pimentel, D., Soans, A.B.: Animal populations regulated to carrying capacity of plant host by genetic feedback. In: Dynamics of populations (P.J. den Boer, G.R. Gradwell, eds.). Proc. Adv. Study Inst. Dynam. Popul. Oosterbeek, pp. 313–326 (1971)Google Scholar
  16. Rosenzweig, M.L.: Why the prey curve has a hump. Amer. Naturalist 103, 81–87 (1969)Google Scholar
  17. Rosenzweig, M.L., MacArthur, R.H.: Graphical representation and sability conditions of predator prey interactions. Amer. Naturalist 97, 209–223 (1963)Google Scholar
  18. Smith, F.E.: Spatial heterogeneity, stability and diversity in ecosystems. In: Growth by intussusception: ecological essays in honor of G. Evelyn Hutchinson (E.S. Deevey, ed.), pp. 309–335. New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 1973Google Scholar
  19. Udovic, J.D.: Evolution in predator-prey systems: some extensions of the genetic feedback models. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University (1974)Google Scholar
  20. Udovic, J.D.: Frequency-dependent selection in evolving predator-prey systems. ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  21. Udovic, J.D., Levin, S.A.: Density-dependent selection and genetic feedback. ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  22. Watt, K.E.F.: A mathematical model for the effect of densities of attacked and attacking species on the number attacked. Canad. Entomol. 91, 129–144 (1959)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Daniel Udovic
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Pimentel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Donald Nafus
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Section of Ecology and SystematicsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations