Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 42, Issue 2–3, pp 111–136 | Cite as

Complex ecological models with simple dynamics: From individuals to populations

  • Pierre M. Auger
  • Robert Roussarie


The aim of this work is to study complex ecological models exhibiting simple dynamics. We consider large scale systems which can be decomposed into weakly coupled subsystems. Perturbation Theory is used in order to get a reduced set of differential equations governing slow time varying global variables. As examples, we study the influence of the individual behaviour of animals in competition and predator-prey models. The animals are assumed to do many activities all day long such as searching for food of different types. The degree of competition as well as the predation pressure are dependent upon these activities. Preys are more vulnerable when doing some activities during which they are very exposed to predators attacks rather than for others during which they are hidden. We study the effect of a change in the average individual behaviour of the animals on interspecific relationships. Computer simulations of the whole sets of equations are compared to simulations of the reduced sets of equations.

Key words

Aggregation methods competition predation individual behaviour perturbation theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abraham, R. and J. Robbin (1967) Transversal Mappings and Flows. New York, Benjamin Editor.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T.F.H. and T.B. Starr (1982). Hierarchy. Perspectives for Ecological Complexity., Chicago, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Andronov, A. and L. Pontryagin (1937) Systèmes grossiers. Dokl. Acad. Nauk. SSSR14, 247–251.Google Scholar
  4. Auger, P. (1982). Coupling between N levels of observation of a system (biological or physical) resulting in creation of structure. Int. J. General Systems 8: 83–100.Google Scholar
  5. Auger, P. (1983) Hierarchically organized populations: interactions between individual, population and ecosystem levels. Math. Biosci. 65: 269–289.Google Scholar
  6. Auger, P. (1985). Stability of interacting populations with age-class distributions. J. Theor. Biol. 112: 595–605.Google Scholar
  7. Auger, P. (1986). Dynamics in hierarchically organized systems: a general model, applied to ecology, biology and economics. Systems Research 3: 41–50.Google Scholar
  8. Auger, P. (1989). Dynamics and Thermodynamics in Hierarchically Organized Systems. Applications in Physics, Biology and Economics. Oxford, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Auger, P. (1990). Self-Organization in Hierarchically Organized Systems. Systems Research 7: 221–236.Google Scholar
  10. Burel, F. and J. Baudry (1990). Structural dynamic of a hedgerow network landscape in Brittany France. Landscape Ecology 4: 197–210.Google Scholar
  11. Cale, W.G., R.V. O'Neill and R.H. Gardner (1983). Aggregation error in nonlinear ecological models. J. Theor. Biol. 100: 539–550.Google Scholar
  12. Di Castri, F. and M. Hadley (1988). Enhancing the credibility of Ecology: Interacting along and across hierarchical scales. GeoJournal 17: 5–35.Google Scholar
  13. Ehresmann, A.C. and J.P. Vanbremeersch (1987). Hierarchical evolutive systems: A mathematical model for complex systems. Bull. of Math. Biol. 49: 13–50.Google Scholar
  14. Fenichel, N. (1971). Persistence and smoothness of invariant manifolds for flows Indiana Univ. Math. Journal. 21: 193–226.Google Scholar
  15. Gard, T.C. (1988). Aggregation in stochastic ecosystem models. Ecol. Modelling 44: 153–164.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, R.H., W.G. Cale and R.V. O'Neill (1982). Robust analysis of aggregation error. Ecology 63: 1771–1779.Google Scholar
  17. Geol, N.S., S.C. Maitra and E.W. Montroll (1971). On the Volterra and other non linear models of interacting populations. Rev. of Mod. Phys. 43: 231–276.Google Scholar
  18. Hirsch, M.W., C.C. Pugh and M. Shub (1977). Invariant Manifolds. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol 583. Berlin, Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Hoppensteadt, F.C. (1966). Singular perturbations on the infinite interval. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 123: 521–535.Google Scholar
  20. Iwasa, Y., V. Andreasen and S.A. Levin (1987). Aggregation in model ecosystems. I. Perfect aggregation. Ecol. Modelling 37: 287–302.Google Scholar
  21. Iwasa, Y., S.A. Levin and V. Andreasen (1989). Aggregation in model ecosystems. II. Approximate aggregation. IMA J. Math. Appl. Med. Biol. 6: 1–23.Google Scholar
  22. Jean, R.V. (1982). The hierarchical control of phyllotaxis. Ann. Bot. 49: 747–760.Google Scholar
  23. Kelley, A. (1967). The center, center-stable, center, center-unstable and unstable manifolds. J. Diff. Eqns. 3: 546–570.Google Scholar
  24. Lorenz, E.N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J. Atmos. Sci. 20: 131–141.Google Scholar
  25. MacMahon, J.A., D.L. Phillips, J.V. Robinson and D.J. Schimpf (1978). Levels of Biological Organization: An Organism-Centered Approach. BioScience 28: 700–704.Google Scholar
  26. May, R.M. (1976). Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. May, R.M. and G.M. Oster (1976). Bifurcations and dynamic complexity in simple ecological models. Amer. Nat. 110: 573–599.Google Scholar
  28. Metz, J.A.J., H. Dienske, G. De Jonge and F.A. Putters (1983). Continuous time-Markov chains as models for animal behaviour. Bull. Math. Biol. 45: 643–658.Google Scholar
  29. Mesarovic, M.D., M. Mako and Y. Takahara Theory of Hierarchical, Multilevel Systems, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Murray, J.D. (1989). Mathematical Biology. Biomathematics Text 19, Berlin, Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Nayfeh, A.H. (1973). Perturbation Methods. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. O'Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis, J.D. Waide and T.F.H. Allen (1986). A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Palis, J. Jr. and W. de Melo (1982). Geometric Theory of Dynamical Systems, an Introduction. Berlin, Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Pattee, H.H. (1973). Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems. New York, Braziller.Google Scholar
  35. Shaffer, W.M. (1981). Ecological abstraction: The consequences of reduced dimensionality in ecological models. Ecological Monographs. 51: 383–401.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, H.A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of American Philosophical Society. 106: 467–482.Google Scholar
  37. Volterra, V. (1931). Leçons sur la théorie mathématique de la lutte pour la vie. Paris, Gauthier Villars.Google Scholar
  38. Wiens, J.A. (1989). Spatial Scaling in Ecology. Functional Ecology. 3: 385–397.Google Scholar
  39. Whyte, L.L., A.G. Wilson and D. Wilson (1969). Hierarchical Structures. New York, Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre M. Auger
    • 1
  • Robert Roussarie
    • 2
  1. 1.URA CNRS 243Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1Villeurbanne CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Topologie URA CNRS 755, Département de Mathématiques, Bâtiment “Mirande”Université de BourgogneDijon CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations