Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 82, Issue 4, pp 437–445 | Cite as

A comparative evaluation of models of cinnabar moth dynamics

  • M. P. Gillman
  • M. J. Crawley
Original Papers

Summary

1. A complex model of cinnabar moth dynamics proposed by Dempster and Lakhani (1979) with 23 parameters is reduced to a single equation with five parameters, and the behaviour of the reduced model shown to explain most features of the full model. 2. The efficiency of the full model is compared with the reduced model and with two even simpler models (the two parameter discrete logistic and a four parameter model based on a step-function for mortality) in their abilities to describe time series data of cinnabar moth population densities from Weeting Heath. Models with more parameters were not significantly better than few-parameter models in describing population trajectories. 3. Models that included a driving variable (in this case observed rainfall data) were no better at describing the data than simpler models without driving variables. It appears, therefore, that the routine inclusion of driving variables may be counterproductive, unless there is compelling empirical or theoretical evidence of their importance and the mode of action of the driving variables can be modelled mechanistically. For example, the regression model used to describe the relationship between rainfall and plant biomass in Dempster and Lakhani (1979), breaks down if rainfall is assumed to be constant, because there is no explicit model for the regulation of plant biomass. 4. The parameter values of the cinnabar-ragwort interaction suggest that cinnabar moth dynamics may be chaotic. Whether or not field data exhibit chaos or environmental stochasticity (or a mixture of both) is impossible to determine from inspection of time series data on population density. There is an urgent need for experimental and theoretical protocols to disentangle these two sources of population fluctuation.

Key words

Population dynamics Driving variables-Chaos Tyria jacobaeae Senecio jacobaea 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Crawley MJ (1983) Herbivory. The Dynamics of Animal Plant Interactions. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Crawley MJ, Gillman MP (1989) The population dynamics of cinnabar moth and ragwort in grassland. J Anim Ecol 58:1035–1050Google Scholar
  3. Dempster JP (1971) The population ecology of the Cinnabar Moth, Tyria jacobaeae L. (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae). Oecologia 7:26–67Google Scholar
  4. Dempster JP (1975) Animal Population Ecology. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Dempster JP, Lakhani KH (1979) A population model for cinnabar moth and its food plant, ragwort. J Anim Ecol 48:143–163Google Scholar
  6. Hassell MP (1981) Arthropod predator-prey systems. In: Theoretical Ecology (ed. RM May), Blackwell Scientific PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  7. Isaacson DL (1973) A life table for the cinnabar moth, Tyria jacobaeae in Oregon. Entomophaga 18:291–303Google Scholar
  8. Lakhani KH, Dempster JP (1981) Cinnabar moth and its food plant, ragwort: further analysis of a simple interaction model. J Anim Ecol 50:231–249Google Scholar
  9. May RM (1981) Theoretical Ecology. Blackwell Scientific PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  10. May RM, Oster GF (1976) Bifurcations and dynamic complexity in simple ecological models. Am Nat 110:573–599Google Scholar
  11. Myers JH (1980) Is the insect or the plant the driving force in the cinnabar moth-tansy ragwort system? Oecologia 47:16–21Google Scholar
  12. Stimac JL (1978) A model study of a plant-herbivore system. Unpublished PhD thesis, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Stimac JL, Isaacson DL (1978) Cinnabar moth as a biological control of tansy ragwort: comparison of population dynamics in England and Oregon. 4th International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds, pp 155–162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Gillman
    • 1
  • M. J. Crawley
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Population Biology, Department of BiologyImperial CollegeAscotUK

Personalised recommendations