Advertisement

Nonlinear Dynamics

, Volume 98, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Periodic habitat destruction and migration can paradoxically enable sustainable territorial expansion

  • Zhi-Xuan Tan
  • Kang Hao CheongEmail author
Original paper

Abstract

Despite depleting the resources in their environments, some species and societies are capable of sustainable habitat expansion by alternating between a low-growth migratory lifestyle and high-growth but destructive behavior. Examples include nomadic pastoralism and shifting cultivation, practiced by humans for millennia. Although specific models have been developed for species or societies which practice periodic migration and habitat depletion, theoretical insight into such phenomena as a whole is lacking. Prior work has shown that a population in a single habitat can survive by alternating between a resource-independent but negative-growth ‘nomadic’ strategy and a destructive but high-growth ‘colonial’ strategy. By explicitly modeling the spatial dynamics of these strategies as they migrate across multiple habitats, we now demonstrate that a population can not only survive, but also sustainably colonize an arbitrarily large network of habitats by alternating between the two strategies. This is possible under a wide range of conditions, as long as the resource level at which a colonial population switches to nomadism is sufficiently high, and the number of neighbors of each habitat in the network is reasonably small. Our theoretical model thus explains the apparent paradox of how two life strategies that individually lead to extinction can nonetheless be combined through spatiotemporal alternation to enable sustained territorial expansion—a finding which synthesizes the theoretical frameworks of Parrondo’s paradox with the exploration–exploitation dilemma.

Keywords

Ecological sustainability Migration ecology Habitat destruction Habitat expansion Parrondo’s paradox Exploration–exploitation dilemma Game theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) Start-up Research Grant (SRG SCI 2019 142).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11071_2019_5094_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (15 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 15410 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (mp4 15763 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M.: Organisms as ecosystem engineers. In: Ecosystem management, 130–147. Springer (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuddington, K., Wilson, W.G., Hastings, A.: Ecosystem engineers: feedback and population dynamics. Am. Nat. 173, 488–498 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M.: Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78, 1946–1957 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tan, Z.X., Cheong, K.H.: Nomadic-colonial life strategies enable paradoxical survival and growth despite habitat destruction. eLife 6, e21673 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldstein, M.C., Beall, C.M., Cincotto, R.: Traditional nomadic pastoralism and ecological conservation on tibet’s northern plateau. Nat. Geogr. Res. 6, 139–156 (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fratkin, E., Mearns, R.: Sustainability and pastoral livelihoods: lessons from east african maasai and mongolia. Hum. Organ. 62, 112–122 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fox, J., et al.: Shifting cultivation: a new old paradigm for managing tropical forests. Bioscience 50, 521–528 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thrupp, L.A., et al.: The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franks, N.R., Fletcher, C.R.: Spatial patterns in army ant foraging and migration: Eciton burchelli on barro colorado island, panama. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 12, 261–270 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sulistyawati, E., Noble, I.R., Roderick, M.L.: A simulation model to study land use strategies in Swidden agriculture systems. Agric. Syst. 85, 271–288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wickramasuriya, R.C., Bregt, A.K., Van Delden, H., Hagen-Zanker, A.: The dynamics of shifting cultivation captured in an extended constrained cellular automata land use model. Ecol. Model. 220, 2302–2309 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mace, R.: Nomadic pastoralists adopt subsistence strategies that maximise long-term household survival. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33, 329–334 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dressler, G., Mueller, B., Frank, K.: Mobility–a panacea for pastoralism? An ecological-economic modelling approach. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress On Environmental Modelling And Software (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pyke, G.H.: Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15, 523–575 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hambäck, P.A.: Seasonality, optimal foraging, and prey coexistence. Am. Nat. 152, 881–895 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown, J.S., Rosenzweig, M.L.: Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J. Theor. Biol. 123, 151–171 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ollason, J.: Learning to forage in a regenerating patchy environment: can it fail to be optimal? Theor. Popul. Biol. 31, 13–32 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams, P.D., Hastings, A.: Paradoxical persistence through mixed-system dynamics: towards a unified perspective of reversal behaviours in evolutionary ecology. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences rspb20102074 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levine, J.M., Rees, M.: Effects of temporal variability on rare plant persistence in annual systems. Am. Nat. 164, 350–363 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolf, D.M., Vazirani, V.V., Arkin, A.P.: Diversity in times of adversity: probabilistic strategies in microbial survival games. J. Theor. Biol. 234, 227–253 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jansen, V.A., Yoshimura, J.: Populations can persist in an environment consisting of sink habitats only. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 95, 3696–3698 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheong, K.H., Koh, J.M., Jones, M.C.: Paradoxical survival: Examining the parrondo effect across biology. BioEssays 41, 1900027 (2019). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bies.201900027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harmer, G.P., Abbott, D.: Game theory: losing strategies can win by parrondo’s paradox. Nature 402, 864–864 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harmer, G.P., Abbott, D., Taylor, P.G., Parrondo, J.M.R.: Brownian ratchets and parrondo’s games. Chaos Interdiscipl. J. Nonlinear Sci. 11, 705–714 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ethier, S.N., Lee, J.: Parrondo games with two-dimensional spatial dependence. Fluct. Noise Lett. 16, 1750005 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abbott, D.: Asymmetry and disorder: a decade of parrondo’s paradox. Fluct. Noise Lett. 9, 129–156 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crossan, M.M., Hurst, D.K.: Strategic renewal as improvisation: reconciling the tension between exploration and exploitation. In: Ecology and Strategy, 273–298 (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eliassen, S., Jørgensen, C., Mangel, M., Giske, J.: Exploration or exploitation: life expectancy changes the value of learning in foraging strategies. Oikos 116, 513–523 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berger-Tal, O., Nathan, J., Meron, E., Saltz, D.: The exploration–exploitation dilemma: a multidisciplinary framework. PLoS ONE 9, e95693 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mehlhorn, K., et al.: Unpacking the exploration–exploitation tradeoff: a synthesis of human and animal literatures. Decision 2, 191 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saha, S., Samanta, G.P.: Influence of dispersal and strong allee effect on a two-patch predator–prey model. Int. J. Dyn. Control (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-018-0490-3
  32. 32.
    Pal, D., Samanta, G.P.: Effects of dispersal speed and strong allee effect on stability of a two-patch predator–prey model. Int. J. Dyn. Control (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-018-0407-1 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bogacki, P., Shampine, L.F.: A 3 (2) pair of runge–kutta formulas. Appl. MatH. Lett. 2, 321–325 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hardin, G.: The tragedy of the commons’(1968) 162. Science 1243, 63 (1968)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith, E.A., et al.: Anthropological applications of optimal foraging theory: a critical review [and comments and reply]. Curr. Anthropol. 24, 625–651 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Huang, J., Chen, H., Tseng, H.: The flow of a reversible ratchet. Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 198–200 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cheong, K.H., Tan, Z.X., Xie, N.-G., Jones, M.: A paradoxical evolutionary mechanism in stochastically switching environments. Sci. Rep. 6, 34889 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34889
  38. 38.
    Zhang, Y., Luo, G.: A special type of codimension two bifurcation and unusual dynamics in a phase-modulated system with switched strategy. Nonlinear Dyn. 67, 2727–2734 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang, Y.: Switching-induced wada basin boundaries in the hénon map. Nonlinear Dyn. 73, 2221–2229 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Danca, M.-F., Lai, D.: Parrondo’s game model to find numerically stable attractors of a tumor growth model. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos 22, 1250258 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ye, Y., Cheong, K.H., Cen, Y.-w., Xie, N.-g.: Effects of behavioral patterns and network topology structures on parrondo’s paradox. Sci. Rep. 6, 37028 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37028
  42. 42.
    Cheong, K.H., Koh, J.M., Jones, M.C.: Multicellular survival as a consequence of parrondo’s paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, E5258–E5259 (2018). https://www.pnas.org/content/115/23/E5258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cánovas, J., Linero, A., Peralta-Salas, D.: Dynamic parrondo’s paradox. Physica D 218, 177–184 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Koh, J.M., Cheong, K.H.: New doubly-anomalous parrondo’s games suggest emergent sustainability and inequality. Nonlinear Dyn. 96, 257–266 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-019-04788-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cheong, K.H., Saakian, D.B., Zadourian, R.: Allison mixture and the two-envelope problem. Phys. Rev. E 96, 062303 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Danca, M.-F.: Convergence of a parameter switching algorithm for a class of nonlinear continuous systems and a generalization of parrondo’s paradox. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 18, 500–510 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bonner, J.: Evolutionary strategies and developmental constraints in the cellular slime molds. Am. Nat. 119, 530–552 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Science and Math ClusterSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations