An essential key to explaining the mechanistic basis of ecological patterns lies in understanding the consequences of adaptive behavior for distributions and abundances of organisms. We developed a model that simultaneously incorporates (a) ecological dynamics across three trophic levels and (b) evolution of behaviors via the processes of mutation, selection, and drift in populations of variable, unique individuals. Using this model to study adaptive movements of predators and prey in a spatially explicit environment produced a number of unexpected results. First, even though predators and prey had limited information and sometimes moved in the “wrong” direction, evolved movement mechanisms allowed them to achieve average spatial distributions approximating optimal, ideal free distributions. Second, predators’ demographic parameters had marked, nonlinear effects on the evolution of movement mechanisms in the prey: As the predator mortality rate was increased past a critical point, prey abruptly shifted from making very frequent movements away from predators to making infrequent movements mainly in response to resources. Third, time series analyses revealed that adaptive, conditional movements coupled ecological dynamics across species and space. Our results provide general predictions, heretofore lacking, about how predators and prey should respond to one another on both ecological and evolutionary time scales.
Predator–prey interactions Individual-based model Movements Ideal free distribution Conditional dispersal Migration
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank V. Křivan, P. Abrams, R. J. Safran, and an anonymous reviewer for feedback on manuscript drafts and participants of the Fields Institute Workshop on Adaptive Movement of Interacting Species for comments on an earlier version of the model. We thank R. J. Safran for use of computing equipment and W. Franz for logistical support. The research of YL was partially supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. We also wish to thank Alan Hastings for organizing this special issue of Theoretical Ecology in honor of Simon Levin and in recognition of Simon’s vast and important contributions as a researcher, collaborator, and mentor.
Abrams PA (2007) Habitat choice in predator–prey systems: spatial instability due to interacting adaptive movements. Am Nat 169:581–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams PA (2009) Adaptive changes in prey vulnerability shape the response of predator populations to mortality. J Theor Biol 261:294–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonzo SH (2002) State-dependent habitat selection games between predators and prey: the importance of behavioural interactions and expected lifetime reproductive success. Evol Ecol Res 4:759–778Google Scholar
Amjad AM, Halliday DM, Rosenberg JR, Conway BA (1997) An extended difference of coherence test for comparing and combining several independent coherence estimates: theory and application to the study of motor units and physiological tremor. J Neurosci Methods 73(1):69–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bak P, Tang C, Wiesenfeld K (1987) Self-organized criticality—an explanation of 1/f-noise. Phys Rev Lett 59:381–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouskila A (2001) A habitat selection game of interactions between rodents and their predators. Ann Zool Fenn 38:55–70Google Scholar
Sih A (2005) Predator–prey space use as an emergent outcome of a behavioral response race. In: Barbosa P, Castellanos I (eds) Ecology of predator–prey interactions. Oxford University Press, London, pp 240–255Google Scholar