Advertisement

Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 567–591 | Cite as

Ecological stability, evolutionary stability and the ESS maximum principle

  • T. L. Vincent
  • M. V. Van
  • B. S. Goh
Article

Summary

Since the fitness of each individual organism in a biological community may be affected by the strategies of all other individuals in the community, the essential element of a ‘game’ exists. This game is an evolutionary game where the individual organisms (players) inherit their strategies from continuous play of the game through time. Here, the strategies are assumed to be constants associated with certain adaptive parameters (such as sunlight conversion efficiency for plants or body length in animals) in a set of differential equations which describe the population dynamics of the community. By means of natural selection, these parameters will evolve to a set of strategy values that natural selection, by itself, can no longer modify, i.e. an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). For a given class of models, it is possible to predict the outcome of this evolutionary process by determining ESSs using an ESS maximum principle. However, heretofore, the proof of this principle has been based on a limited set of conditions. Herein, we generalize the proof by removing certain restrictions and use instead the concept of an ecological stable equilibrium (ESE). Individuals in a biological community will be at an ESE if fixing the strategies used by the individuals results in stable population densities subject to perturbations in those densities. We present both necessary and sufficient conditions for an ESE to exist and then use the ESE concept to provide a very simple proof of the ESS maximum principle (which is a necessary condition for an ESS). A simple example is used to illustrate the difference between a strategy that maximizes fitness and one that satisfies the ESS maximum principle. In general they are different. We also look for ESEs in Lotka—Volterra competition and use the maximum principle to determine when an ESE will be an ESS. Finally, we examine the applicability of these ideas to matrix games.

Keywords

evolutionarily stable strategies ecological stability evolutionary games 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apostol, T.M. (1974)Mathematical Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W.D. (1981) The evolution of cooperation.Science 211, 1390–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J.S. and Vincent, T.L. (1986) Predator—prey coevolution as an evolutionary game. InApplications of Control Theory in Ecology (Y. Cohen, ed.), pp. 80–97. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J.S. and Vincent, T.L. (1987) A theory for the evolutionary game.Theor. Pop. Biol. 31, 140–66.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J.S. and Vincent, T.L. (1992) Organization of predator—prey communities as an evolutionary game.Evolution 46, 1269–83.Google Scholar
  6. Case, T.J. (1982) Coevolution in resource-limited competition communities.Theor. Pop. Biol. 21, 69–91.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, D. (1991) Evolutionary games in economics.Econometrica 211, 637–66.Google Scholar
  8. Goh, B.S. (1980)Management and Analysis of Biological Populations. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Hines, W.G.S. (1987) Evolutionary stable strategies: a review of basic theory.Theor. Pop. Biol. 31, 195–272.Google Scholar
  10. May, R.M. (1973)Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. May, R.M. (1976) Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics.Nature 266, 459–67.Google Scholar
  12. Maynard Smith, J. (1982)Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Riechert, S.E. and Hammerstein, P. (1983) Game theory in the ecological context.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14, 377–409.Google Scholar
  14. Roberts, A. (1974) The stability of feasible random systems.Nature 250, 607–8.Google Scholar
  15. Roughgarden, J. (1983) The theory of coevolution. InCoevolution (D.J. Futuyama and M. Slatkin, eds), pp. 383–403. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Rummel, J.D. and Roughgarden, J. (1983) Some differences between invasion-structured and coevolutionstructured competitive communities: a preliminary theoretical analysis.Oikos 41, 477–86.Google Scholar
  17. Vincent, T.L. (1985) Evolutionary games.J. Optimizat. Theory Appl. 46(4), 605–12.Google Scholar
  18. Vincent, T.L. and Brown, J.S. (1984) Stability in an evolutionary game.Theor. Pop. Biol. 26, 408–27.Google Scholar
  19. Vincent, T.L. and Brown, J.S. (1987) An evolutionary response to harvesting. InModeling and Management of Resources Under Uncertainty (T.L. Vincent, Y. Cohen, W.J. Grantham, G.P. Kirkwood and J.M. Skowronski, eds), pp. 80–97. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  20. Vincent, T.L. and Brown, J.S. (1988) The evolution of ESS theory.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19, 423–43.Google Scholar
  21. Vincent, T.L. and Brown, J.S. (1989) The evolutionary response to a changing environment.Appl. Math. Comput. 32, 185–206.Google Scholar
  22. Vincent, T.L. and Fisher, M.E. (1988) Evolutionarily stable strategies in differential and difference equation models.Evol. Ecol. 2, 321–37.Google Scholar
  23. Vincent, T.L, Cohen, Y. and Brown, J.S. (1993) Evolution via strategy dynamics.Theor. Pop. Biol. 44, 149–76.Google Scholar
  24. Zeeman, E.C. (1980) Population dynamics from game theory. InGlobal Theory of Dynamical Systems (Z. Nitecki and C. Robinson, eds), pp. 471–97. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. L. Vincent
    • 1
  • M. V. Van
    • 1
  • B. S. Goh
    • 2
  1. 1.Aerospace and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations