Abstract
This paper demonstrates how discrete-time models describing population dynamics of two competing species can be derived in a bottom-up manner by considering competition for resources among individuals and the spatial distribution of individuals. The competition type of each species is assumed to be either scramble, contest, or an intermediate between them. Individuals of two species are distributed over resource sites or patches following one of three distribution functions. According to the combination of competition types of the two species and the distribution of individuals, various interspecific competition models are derived. Furthermore, a general interspecific competition model that includes various competition models as special cases is derived for each distribution of individuals. Finally, this paper examines dynamics of some of the derived competition models and shows that the likelihood of coexistence of the two species varies greatly, depending on the type of spatial distribution of individuals.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anazawa, M. (2009). Bottom-up derivation of discrete-time population models with the Allee effect. Theor. Popul. Biol., 75, 56–67.
Anazawa, M. (2010). The mechanistic basis of discrete-time population models: the role of resource partitioning and spatial aggregation. Theor. Popul. Biol., 77, 213–218.
Anazawa, M. (2012). Bottom-up derivation of population models for competition involving multiple resources. Theor. Popul. Biol., 81, 158–167.
Atkinson, W. D., & Shorrocks, B. (1981). Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource: a simulation model. J. Anim. Ecol., 461–471.
Brännström, Å., & Sumpter, D. J. T. (2005a). Coupled map lattice approximations for spatially explicit individual-based models of ecology. Bull. Math. Biol., 67, 663–682.
Brännström, Å., & Sumpter, D. J. T. (2005b). The role of competition and clustering in population dynamics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 272, 2065–2072.
Brännström, Å., & Sumpter, D. J. T. (2006). Stochastic analogues of deterministic single-species population models. Theor. Popul. Biol., 69, 442–451.
Chesson, P. (1998a). Making sense of spatial models in ecology. In J. Bascompte & R. V. Sole (Eds.), Modeling spatiotemporal dynamics in ecology (pp. 151–166). Berlin: Springer.
Chesson, P. (1998b). Spatial scales in the study of reef fishes: a theoretical perspective. Aust. J. Ecol., 23, 209–215.
Chesson, P., Donahue, M., Melbourne, B., & Sears, A. (2005). Scale transition theory for understanding mechanisms in metacommunities. In M. Holyoak, M. A. Leibold, & R. D. Holt (Eds.), Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities (pp. 279–306). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Eskola, H. T. M., & Geritz, S. A. H. (2007). On the mechanistic derivation of various discrete-time population models. Bull. Math. Biol., 69, 329–346.
Eskola, H. T. M., & Parvinen, K. (2007). On the mechanistic underpinning of discrete-time population models with Allee effect. Theor. Popul. Biol., 72, 41–51.
Eskola, H. T. M., & Parvinen, K. (2010). The Allee effect in mechanistic models based on inter-individual interaction processes. Bull. Math. Biol., 72, 184–207.
Fujii, K. (1965). A statistical model of the competition curve. Res. Popul. Ecol., 7, 118–125.
Geritz, S. A. H., & Kisdi, E. (2004). On the mechanistic underpinning of discrete-time population models with complex dynamics. J. Theor. Biol., 228, 261–269.
Gotzen, B., Liebscher, V., & Walcher, S. (2011). On a class of deterministic population models with stochastic foundation. Bull. Math. Biol., 73, 1559–1582.
Grimm, V., & Railsback, S. F. (2005). Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Grimm, V., & Uchmański, J. (2002). Individual variability and population regulation: a model of the significance of within-generation density dependence. Oecologia, 131, 196–202.
Gurney, W. S. C. (1998). Ecological dynamics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hartley, S., & Shorrocks, B. (2002). A general framework for the aggregation model of coexistence. J. Anim. Ecol., 71, 651–662.
Hassell, M. P. (1975). Density-dependence in single-species populations. J. Anim. Ecol., 44, 283–295.
Hassell, M. P., & Comins, H. N. (1976). Discrete time models for two-species competition. Theor. Popul. Biol., 9, 202–221.
Hassell, M. P., & May, R. M. (1985). From individual behaviour to population dynamics. In R. M. Sibley & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Behavioral ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour (pp. 3–32). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hofbauer, J., Hutson, V., & Jansen, W. (1987). Coexistence for systems governed by difference equations of Lotka-Volterra type. J. Math. Biol., 25, 553–570.
Ishii, Y., & Shimada, M. (2008). Competitive exclusion between contest and scramble strategists in Callosobruchus seed–beetle modeling. Popul. Ecol., 50, 197–205.
Jiang, H., & Rogers, T. D. (1987). The discrete dynamics of symmetric competition in the plane. J. Math. Biol., 25, 573–596.
Johansson, A., & Sumpter, D. J. T. (2003). From local interactions to population dynamics in site-based models of ecology. Theor. Popul. Biol., 64, 497–517.
Johst, K., Berryman, A., & Lima, M. (2008). From individual interactions to population dynamics: individual resource partitioning simulation exposes the cause of nonlinear intra-specific competition. Popul. Ecol., 50, 79–90.
Łomnicki, A. (1988). Population ecology of individuals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Łomnicki, A. (2009). Scramble and contest competition, unequal resource allocation, and resource monopolization as determinants of population dynamics. Evol. Ecol. Res., 11, 371–380.
May, R. M. (1974). Biological populations with nonoverlapping generations: stable points, stable cycles, and chaos. Science, 186, 645–647.
Nicholson, A. J. (1954). An outline of the dynamics of animal populations. Aust. J. Zool., 2, 9–65.
Ricker, W. E. (1954). Stock and recruitment. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 11, 559–623.
Royama, T. (1992). Analytical population dynamics. London: Chapman & Hall.
Seno, H. (2007). Mathematical biology: introduction to population dynamics modelling. Tokyo: Kyoritsu Shuppan (in Japanese).
Shorrocks, B., Atkinson, W., & Charlesworth, P. (1979). Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource. J. Anim. Ecol., 899–908.
Sumpter, D. J. T., & Broomhead, D. S. (2001). Relating individual behaviour to population dynamics. Proc. R. Soc. B, 268, 925–932.
Sutherland, W. (1996). From individual behaviour to population ecology. London: Oxford University Press.
Thanthianga, C., & Mitchell, R. (1987). Vibrations mediate prudent resource exploitation by competing larvae of the bruchid bean weevil callosobruchus maculatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 44, 15–21.
Thieme, H. R. (2003). Mathematics in population biology. Princeton series in theoretical and computational biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Toquenaga, Y. (1993). Contest and scramble competitions in callosobruchus maculatus (coleoptera: Bruchidae) ii. larval competition and interference mechanisms. Res. Popul. Ecol., 35, 57–68.
Toquenaga, Y., & Fujii, K. (1991). Contest and scramble competitions in callosobruchus maculatus (coleoptera: Bruchidae). Res. Popul. Ecol., 33, 199–211.
Uchmański, J. (2000). Resource partitioning among competing individuals and population persistence: an individual-based model. Ecol. Model., 131, 21–32.
Wells, H., Strauss, E. G., Rutter, M. A., & Wells, P. H. (1998). Mate location, population growth and species extinction. Biol. Conserv., 86, 317–324.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Kazunori Sato for useful discussions and to Yumiko Ishii for giving me valuable information on population experiments involving seed beetles. I also thank two anonymous reviewers for their careful readings and helpful comments which have greatly improved the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
Interaction functions (47) and (48) can be derived as described below. Consider a site containing k and ℓ individuals of species 1 and 2, respectively, and an amount of resource R. When we focus on a given individual of species 1 in this site, the probability that exactly r−1 and ℓ′ individuals of species 1 and 2, respectively, are competitively superior to this individual is given by
where u is the value of the competitive ability U of the individual under consideration, and
is the probability that a given individual of species i is competitively superior to the individual under consideration. In this situation, because each individual tries to obtain s i resources in the order of competitive ability, the probability that the individual under consideration can obtain s 1 is
where the probability on the left-hand side has been calculated with the distribution density of R, Eq. (6). By combining Eqs. (64) and (66) and summing up all possible situations, the interaction function for species 1 can be written as
where the last expression indeed yields Eq. (47) with Eq. (49). The interaction function (48) for species 2 can also be derived in the same manner.
Appendix B
We confirm here that the model described by Eqs. (50), (51), and (59) indeed includes the model (40) and (41) as a special case. Because in Sect. 3.4 we assumed that individuals of species 1 were always competitively superior to individuals of species 2, we assume here a situation in which q 1(u) and q 2(u) do not overlap, but instead there is a value a that satisfies q 1(u)=0 for u<a and q 2(u)=0 for u>a, as shown in Fig. 5. In addition, the following is assumed:
Here, \(1-\hat{c}_{2}(u)\) represents the intensity of scramble type competition that an individual with U=u experiences from an individual of species 2 with a smaller value of U. Equation (69) indicates that this intensity is \(1-\hat{c}_{21}\) for an individual with u>a, i.e., species 1, and \(1-\hat{c}_{2}\) for an individual with u<a, i.e. species 2, depending on the species of the individual with U=u. With the assumptions above, Eqs. (50) and (51) become
where \(D_{11}=1-\hat{c}_{1}+(\hat{c}_{1}-c_{1})Q_{1}\), \(D_{21}=1-\hat{c}_{21}\), D 12=1−c 1, \(D_{22}=1-\hat{c}_{2} +(\hat{c}_{2}-c_{2})Q_{2}\), and \(Q_{i}(u) =\int_{u}^{\infty} du'\, q_{i}(u')\), which is the proportion of the individuals of species i with U>u. Performing the integrals in Eqs. (70) and (71) indeed gives Eqs. (40) and (41).
Appendix C
This appendix describes the derivation of Lotka–Volterra competition models which approximate some of the competition models derived in this paper. We start with the following discrete-time competition model:
When population densities x t and y t are small, if we approximate the per capita growth rates f(x t ,y t ) and g(x t ,y t ) by their Taylor series around x t =y t =0 up to the order of x t and y t , Eqs. (72) and (73) become
where f 0, f 1, f 2, g 0, g 1, and g 2 are constants. If the differences between population densities in two successive generations are always small, long term population dynamics will be able to be described approximately by some differential equations. Here, in order to do so, a new time τ≡tΔτ is introduced, where Δτ≪1. Rewriting Eqs. (74) and (75) as
indicates that the long term dynamics will be described approximately by the following differential equations:
which are Lotka–Volterra competition equations. Comparing these equations with
we can read intrinsic per capita growth rate r i , carrying capacity K i , and interspecific competition coefficient α ji , which represents the relative effect of competition of species j on species i.
Parameters of Lotka–Volterra equations corresponding to some of the models derived in this paper are presented in the following. The intrinsic percapita growth rate r i is given by (b i −1)/Δτ for any competition models, and other parameters depend on the type of each model. For Eqs. (40) and (41), which describe a model for intermediate vs. intermediate competition when p k,ℓ is the negative trinomial distribution, we obtain
When p k,ℓ is the independent negative binomial distribution, we have
For a general model for intermediate vs. intermediate competition described by Eqs. (50), (51), and (59) when p k,ℓ is the negative trinomial distribution, we obtain
When p k,ℓ is the independent negative binomial distribution, we have
Note that Eq. (91) indicates that α ji , which represents the effect of competition of species j on species i, does not depend on 1/λ j , the degree of spatial aggregation of species j, while depending on 1/λ i .
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anazawa, M. Interspecific Competition Models Derived from Competition Among Individuals. Bull Math Biol 74, 1580–1605 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-012-9726-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-012-9726-0