Resolving the limitation – regulation debate
- 156 Downloads
- 9 Citations
Abstract
Many recent ecological studies have demonstrated that animal populations are limited by their food. Examples are presented here to refute the view that natural populations are regulated by negative feedback mortality factors. Additionally, several incorrect statements in a recent publication are discussed, specifically (1) that there is no difference between the concepts of regulation and limitation; (2) that the debate is about what causes the time it takes a population to reach the carrying capacity of its habitat, not what sets that carrying capacity; (3) that the results of a laboratory experiment using a closed population with fixed amounts of food represents what happens in natural open populations with varying supplies of food; (4) that a thermostat analogy can be used, assuming that an “equilibrium” is controlling natural populations “from above” instead of the original steam analogy which says the varying input of a resource “from below” is the controlling factor.
Keywords
Bottom–up:top–down control Carrying capacity Food limitation Open:closed populations PredationReferences
- Berryman AA (2004) Limiting factors and population regulation. Oikos 105:667–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blackwell GL, Potter MA, McLennan JA, Minot EO (2003) The role of predators in ship rat and house mouse population eruptions: drivers or passengers? Oikos 100:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Graham IM, Lambin X (2002) The impact of weasel predation on cyclic field-vole survival: the specialist predator hypothesis contradicted. J Anim Ecol 71:946–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Honer OP, Wachter B, East ML, Runyoro VA, Hofer H (2005) The effect of prey abundance and foraging tactics on the population dynamics of a social, territorial carnivore, the spotted hyena. Oikos 108:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lack D (1954) The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Lauckhart JB (1957) Animal cycles and food. J Wildl Manage 21:230–234Google Scholar
- Lindstrom A, Enemar A, Andersson G, von Proschwitz T, Nyholm NEI (2005) Density dependent reproductive output in relation to a drastically varying food supply: getting the density measure right. Oikos 110:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Madson T, Ujvari B, Shine R, Olsson M (2006) Rain, rats and pythons: climate-driven population dynamics of predators and prey in tropical Australia. Aust Ecol 31:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mduma SAR, Sinclair ARE, Hilborn R (1999) Food regulates the Serengeti wildebeest: a 40 year record. J Anim Ecol 68:1101–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Merson MH, Kirkpatrick RL (1981) Relative sensitivity of reproductive activity and body-fat level to food restriction in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Am Midl Nat 106:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nicholson AJ (1933) The balance of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 2:132–149Google Scholar
- Packer C, Hilborn R, Mosser A, Kissui B, Borner M, Hopcraft G, Wilmshurst J, Mduma S, Sinclair ARE (2005) Ecological change, group territoriality, and population dynamics of Serengeti lions. Science 307:390–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Southwick CH (1955) The population dynamics of confined house mice supplied with unlimited food. Ecology 36:212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Strecker RL, Emlen JT Jr (1953) Regulatory mechanisms in house-mouse populations: the effect of limited food supply on a confined population. Ecology 34:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- White TCR (2004) Limitation of populations by weather-driven changes in food: a challenge to density-dependent regulation. Oikos 105:664–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar