Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 385–404 | Cite as

Effect of Hawk-Dove Game on the Dynamics of Two Competing Species

Regular Article

Abstract

Outcomes of interspecific competition, and especially the possibility of coexistence, have been extensively studied in theoretical ecology because of their implications in community assemblages. During the last decades, the influence of different time scales through the local/regional dynamics of animal communities has received an increasing attention. Nevertheless, different time scales involved in interspecific competition can result form other processes than spatial dynamics. Here, we envision and analyze a new theoretical framework that couples a game theory approach for competition with a demographic model. We take advantage of these two time scales to derive a reduced model governing the total densities of the two populations and we study how these two time scales interfere and influence outcomes of species competition. We find that a competition process occurring on a faster time scale than demography yields a “priority effect” where the first species introduced outcompetes the other one. We then confirm previous findings stipulating that species coexistence is favored by large difference in time scales because the extinction/recolonization process. Our results then highlight that an integration of demographic and competition time scales at both local and regional levels is mandatory to explain communities assemblages and should become a research priority.

Keywords

Hawk and dove tactics Aggregation of variables Interspecific competition 

References

  1. Alexander JM (2003) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, chapter evolutionary game theory. Stanford University Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  2. Almany GR (2003) Priority effects in coral reef fish communities. Ecology 84:1920–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auger P, Poggiale JC (1996) Emergence of population growth models: fast migration and slow growth. J Theor Biol 182:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Auger P, Bravo de la Parra R (1998) Hawk-dove games and competition dynamics. Math Comput Modell 27:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auger P, Bravo de la Parra R, Poggicale JC, Sanchez E, Nguyen Huu T (2008) Structured population models in biology and epidemiology, lecture notes in mathematics, vol. 1936, Mathematical Biosciences Subseries, chapter Aggregation of variables and applications to population dynamics, pp 209–263Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Auger P, Bravo de la Parra R, Sanchez E (2001) Behavioral dynamics of two interacting hawk-dove populations. Math Models Methods Appl Sci (M3AS) 11:645–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Auger P, Bravo de la Parra R (2002) A predator-prey model with predators using hawk and dove tactics. Math Biosci 2002:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Auger P, Kooi B, Bravo de la Parra R, Poggiale JC (2006) Bifurcation analysis of a predator prey model with predators using hawk and dove tactics. J Theor Biol 238:597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Auger P, Pontier D (1998) Fast game theory coupled to slow population dynamics: the case of domestic cat populations. Math Biosci 148:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Auger P, Roussarie R (1994) Complex ecological models with simple dynamics: from individuals to populations. Acta Biotheor 42:111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cody ML, Diamond JM (1975) Ecology and evolution of communities. In: Cody M L, Diamond JM (eds) Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Cressman R, Dash AT, Akin E (1986) Evolutionary games and two species population dynamics. J Math Biol 23:221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cressman R (1992) The stability concept of evolutionary game theory, lecture notes in biomathematics, vol 94. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cressman R (1995) Evolutionary game theory with two groups of individuals. Games Econ Behav 11:237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christophe L, Auger P, Gaillard JM (2004) Continuous cycling of grouped vs. solitary strategy frequencies in a predatorprey model. Theor Popul Biol 65:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enquist BJ, Brown JH, West GB (1998) Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature 395:163–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanski I (1983) Coexistence of competitors in patchy environment. Ecology 64:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology genetics and evolution. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1998) Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge Univeristy Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hugueny B, Cornell HV, Harrison S (2007) Metacommunity models predict the local-regional species richness relationship in a natural system. Ecology 88:1696–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iwasa Y, Endreasen V, Levin SA (1989) Aggregation in model ecosystems ii. Approximate aggregation. IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 6:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keeling MJ (2000) Simple stochastic models and their power-law type behaviour. Theor Popul Biol 58:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koleff P, Gaston KJ (2002) The relationships between local and regional species richness and spatial turnover. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawler SP, Morin PJ (1993) Temporal overlap, competition and priority effect. Ecology 74:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin SA (1969) Dispersion and population interactions. Am Nat 108:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marvà M, Moussaoui A, Auger P (2013) A density-dependent model describing age-structured population dynamics using hawk-dove tactics. J Differ Equ Appl 19:1022–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflicts. Nature 246:15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maynard-Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mchich R, Auger P, Lett C (2006) Effects of aggregative and solitary individual behaviors on the dynamics of predator-prey game models. Ecol Model 197:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mouquet N, Munguia P, Keintel JM, Miller TE (2003) Community assembly time and the relationship between local and regional species richness. Oikos 103:618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murray JD (1989) Mathematical biology. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ricklefs RE (1987) Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 235:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shorrocks B, Bingley M (1994) Priority effects and species coexistence: experiments with fungal breeding drosophila. J Anim Ecol 63:799–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanchez E, Auger P, Bravo de la Parra R (1997) Influence of individual aggressiveness on the dynamics of competitive populations. Acta Biotheor 45:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shurin JB, Allen EG (2001) Effects of competition, predation, and dispersal on species richness at local and regional scales. Am Nat 158:624–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sigmund K (1986) A survey of replicator equations. In: Casti JL, Karlqvist A (eds) Complexity, language and life: mathematical approaches. Springer, Berlin, p 16Google Scholar
  37. Slatkin M (1974) Competition and regional coexistence. Ecology 55:128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vandermeer J, Evans MA, Foster P, Hk T, Reiskind M, Wund M (2002) Increased competition may promote species coexistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:8731–8736CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de MathématiquesUniversité de TlemcenTlemcenAlgérie
  2. 2.IRD, UMI 209UMMISCOBondyFrance
  3. 3.IRD, UMI 209UMMISCOBondyFrance

Personalised recommendations