Advertisement

Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 67, Issue 2, pp 169–184 | Cite as

Symmetric competition as a general model for single-species adaptive dynamics

  • Michael Doebeli
  • Iaroslav Ispolatov
Article

Abstract

Adaptive dynamics is a widely used framework for modeling long-term evolution of continuous phenotypes. It is based on invasion fitness functions, which determine selection gradients and the canonical equation of adaptive dynamics. Even though the derivation of the adaptive dynamics from a given invasion fitness function is general and model-independent, the derivation of the invasion fitness function itself requires specification of an underlying ecological model. Therefore, evolutionary insights gained from adaptive dynamics models are generally model-dependent. Logistic models for symmetric, frequency-dependent competition are widely used in this context. Such models have the property that the selection gradients derived from them are gradients of scalar functions, which reflects a certain gradient property of the corresponding invasion fitness function. We show that any adaptive dynamics model that is based on an invasion fitness functions with this gradient property can be transformed into a generalized symmetric competition model. This provides a precise delineation of the generality of results derived from competition models. Roughly speaking, to understand the adaptive dynamics of the class of models satisfying a certain gradient condition, one only needs a complete understanding of the adaptive dynamics of symmetric, frequency-dependent competition. We show how this result can be applied to number of basic issues in evolutionary theory.

Mathematics Subject Classification

92 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackermann M, Doebeli M (2004) Evolution of niche width and adaptive diversification. Evolution 58(12): 2599–2612Google Scholar
  2. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1999) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400(6742): 354–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M, Metz JAJ, Tautz D (eds) (2004) Adaptive speciation. Cambridge Studies in Adaptive Dynamics Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Dieckmann U, Law R (1996) The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J Math Biol 34(5–6): 579–612MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dieckmann U, Marrow P, Law R (1995) Evolutionary cycling in predator–prey interactions—population-dynamics and the red queen. J Theor Biol 176(1): 91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doebeli M (2011) Adaptive diversification. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2000) Evolutionary branching and sympatric speciation caused by different types of ecological interactions. Am Nat 156: S77–S101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doebeli M, Ispolatov Y (2010) Complexity and diversity. Science 328: 494–497MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durinx M, Metz J, Meszèna G (2008) Adaptive dynamics for physiologically structured models. J Math Biol 56: 673–742MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geritz SAH, Kisdi E, Meszéna G, Metz JAJ (1998) Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol Ecol 12(1): 35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gyllenberg M, Parvinen K (2001) Necessary and sufficient conditions for evolutionary suicide. Bull Math Biol 63(5): 981–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heino M, Metz J, Kaitala V (1999) The enigma of frequency-dependent selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13: 378–380Google Scholar
  13. Kisdi E (1999) Evolutionary branching under asymmetric competition. J Theor Biol 197(2): 149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lande R (1979) Quantitative genetic-analysis of mulitvariate evolution, applied to brain–body size allometry. Evolution 33(1): 402–416MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Law R, Marrow P, Dieckmann U (1997) On evolution under asymmetric competition. Evol Ecol 11(4): 485–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leimar O (2009) Multidimensional convergence stability. Evol Ecol Res 11: 191–208Google Scholar
  17. Marrow P, Dieckmann U, Law R (1996) Evolutionary dynamics of predator-prey systems: an ecological perspective. J Math Biol 34(5–6): 556–578zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meszéna G, Gyllenberg M, Jacobs FJ, Metz J (2005) Link between population dynamics and dynamics of darwinian evolution. Phys Rev Lett 95: 078105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Metz JAJ, Geritz SAH, Meszéna G, Jacobs FJA, van Heerwaarden JS (1996) Stochastic and spatial structures of dynamical systems. In: van Strien S, Verduyn Lunel S (eds) Proceedings of the Royal Dutch Academy of Science, KNAW, Verhandlingen, North Holland, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 183–231Google Scholar
  20. Metz JAJ, Nisbet RM, Geritz SAH (1992) How should we define fitness for general ecological scenarios. Trends Ecol Evol 7(6): 198–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nowak M, Sigmund K (1990) The evolution of stochastic strategies in the prisoners-dilemma. Acta Appl Math 20(3): 247–265MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parvinen K (2005) Evolutionary suicide. Acta Biotheor 53: 241–2764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spivak M (1999) A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, vol 1. Publish or Perish, BerkeleyzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Taper ML, Case TJ (1992) Models of character displacement and the theoretical robustness of taxon cycles. Evolution 46(2): 317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Departamento de FísicaUniversidad de Santiago de ChileSantiago 2Chile

Personalised recommendations