Intra-specific competition defines the relationship between population density and the performance of individual organisms (R-function). Observation of this relationship in nature shows it to be frequently nonlinear, and it has been argued, on intuitive grounds, that this nonlinearity is due to the type of competition (scramble or contest) being expressed. Here, we use an individual-based simulation model to investigate the effects of three resource partitioning schemes, representing different types of competition, on the form of the R-function. Results indicate that all resource partitioning schemes can give rise to concave or convex functions depending on the balance between maximum individual birth rate, maintenance cost, and demand for resources. Given high growth rates and maintenance costs, contest competitors tend to exhibit less concavity than scramblers. Therefore, population stability can be strongly affected by the strategy of resource partitioning. Life histories and environmental conditions that encourage the homogeneous distribution of resources among individuals lead to complex and unstable dynamics. Stable dynamics is fostered by heterogeneous resource distribution, which could result from such things as social hierarchies, individual and environmental variability, and large, indivisible resource packets.
Density regulation Growth function Maintenance cost Resource demand
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank Adam Łomnicki and Tim Coulson for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Łomnicki A, Sedziwy S (1988) Resource partitioning and population stability under exploitation competition. J Theor Biol 132:119–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łomnicki A, Sedziwy S (1989) Do individual-differences in resource intakes without monopolization cause population stability and persistence? J Theor Biol 136:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates DM, Watts DG (1988) Nonlinear regression analysis and its applications. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
Bellows TS (1981) The descriptive properties of some models for density dependence. J Anim Ecol 50:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman AA (1999) Principles of population dynamics and their application. Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
Berryman A, Lima M (2006) Deciphering the effects of climate on animal populations: diagnostic analysis provides new interpretation of Soay sheep dynamics. Am Nat 168:784–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman AA, Michalski J, Gutierrez AP, Artiditi R (1995) Logistic theory of food web dynamics. Ecology 76:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. HM Stationary Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
Bjørnstad ON, Hansen TF (1994) Individual variation and population dynamics. Oikos 69:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brännström Å, Sumpter DJT (2005) The role of competition and clustering in population dynamics. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:2065–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkey TV, Stenseth NC (1994) Population dynamics of territorial species in seasonal and patchy environments. Oikos 69:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett T (1958) Dispersal of an insect parasite over a small plot. Can Entomol 90:279–283Google Scholar
Dennis B, Desharnais RA, Cushing JM, Henson SM, Costantino RF (2001) Estimating chaos and complex dynamics in an insect population. Ecol Monogr 71:277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskola TM, Geritz SAH (2007) On the mechanistic derivation of discrete-time population models by varying within-season patterns of reproduction and aggression. B Math Biol 69:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita H, Utida F (1952) The effect of population density on the growth of an animal population. Res Popul Ecol 1:1–14 (in Japanese, translated into English in: Ecology 34:488–498)Google Scholar
Geritz SAH, Kisdi E (2004) On the mechanistic underpinning of discrete-time population models with complex dynamics. J Theor Biol 228:261–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getz WM (1996) A hypothesis regarding the abruptness of density dependence and the growth rate of populations. Ecology 77:2014–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar