Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 57–69 | Cite as

Trait diversity promotes stability of community dynamics

  • Lai Zhang
  • Uffe Høgsbro Thygesen
  • Kim Knudsen
  • Ken Haste Andersen
Original Paper

Abstract

The theoretical exploration of how diversity influences stability has traditionally been approached by species-centric methods. Here we offer an alternative approach to the diversity–stability problem by examining the stability and dynamics of size and trait distributions of individuals. The analysis is performed by comparing the properties of two size spectrum models. The first model considers all individuals as belonging to the same “average” species, i.e., without a description of diversity. The second model introduces diversity by further considering individuals by a trait, here asymptotic body size. The dynamic properties of the models are described by a stability analysis of equilibrium solutions and by the non-equilibrium dynamics. We find that the introduction of trait diversity expands the set of parameters for which the equilibrium is stable and, if the community is unstable, makes the oscillations smaller, slower, and more regular. The stabilizing mechanism is the variation in growth rate between individuals with the same body size but different trait values.

Keywords

Life history Size spectra Structured population Trait-based modeling 

References

  1. Andersen KH, Beyer JE, (2006) Asymptotic body size determines species abundance in the marine size spectrum. Am Nat 168:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen KH, Beyer JE, Lundberg P (2009) Trophic and individual efficiencies of size-structured communities. Proc R Soc B 276:109–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen KH, Pedersen M (2010) Damped trophic cascades driven by fishing in model marine ecosystems. Proc R Soc B 277:795–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoît E, Rochet MJ (2004) A continuous model of biomass size spectra governed by predation and the effects of fishing on them. J Theor Biol 226:9–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard JE, Jennings S, Law R, Castle MD, McCloghrie P, Rochet MJ, Benoît E (2009) How does abundance scale with body size in coupled size-structured food webs? J Anim Ecol 78:270–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boudreau PR, Dickie LM (1992) Biomass spectra of aquatic ecosystems in relation to fisheries yield. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49:1528–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks JL, Dodson SI (1965) Predation, body size, and composition of plankton. Science 150:28–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brose U, Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2006) Allometric scaling enhances stability in complex food webs. Ecol Lett 9:1228–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capitán JA, Delius GW (2010) Scale-invariant model of marine population dynamics. Phys Rev E 81:061901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers RC (1997) Environmental influences on egg and propagule sizes in marine fishes. In: Chambers RC, Trippel EA (eds) Early life history and recruitment in fish population. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 63–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen JE, Pimm SL, Yodzis P, Saldana J (1993) Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. J Anim Ecol 62:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen JE, Jonsson T, Carpenter SR (2003) Ecological community description using the food web, species abundance, and body size. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:1781–1786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross MC, Hohenberg PC (1993) Pattern formation outside of equilibrium. Rev Mod Phys 65:851–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Datta S, Delius GW, Law R (2010) A jump-growth model for predator–prey dynamics: derivation and application to marine ecosystem. Bull Math Biol 72:1361–1382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Datta S, Delius GW, Law R, Plank MJ (2011) A stability analysis of the power-law steady state of marine size spectrum. J Math Biol. doi:101007/s00285-010-0387-z PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunne JA, Brose U, Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2005) Modeling food web dynamics: complexity–stability implications. In: Belgrano A, Scharler U, Dunne JA, Ulanowicz RE (eds) Aquatic food webs. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross T, Rudolf L, Levin SA, Dieckmann U (2009) Generalized models reveal stabilizing factors in food webs. Science 325:747–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1988) The theory of evolution and dynamical systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartvig M, Andersen KH, Beyer JE (2011) Food web framework for size-structured populations. J Theor Biol 272:113–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jennings S, Mackinson S (2003) Abundance–body mass relationships in size-structured food webs. Ecol Lett 6:971–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kerr SR, Dickie LM (2001) The biomass spectrum: a predator–prey theory of aquatic production. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Kondoh M (2003) Foraging adaptation and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability. Science 299:1388–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuznetsov YA (1994) Elements of applied bifurcation theory. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Law R, Morton RD (1993) Alternative permanent states of ecological communities. Ecology 74:1347–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Law R, Plank MJ, James A, Blanchard JL (2009) Size-spectra dynamics from stochastic predation and growth of individuals. Ecology 90:802–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. May RM (1972) Will a large complex system be stable. Nature 18:413–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCann K, Hastings A, Huxel GR (1998) Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKendrick AG (1926) Applications of mathematics to medical problems. P Edinburgh Math Soc 44:98–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oksanen L, Fretwell SD, Arruda J, Niemela P (1981) Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 2:264–261Google Scholar
  30. Peters R (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Plank MJ, Law R (2011) Ecological drivers of stability and instability in marine ecosystems. Theor Ecol. doi:10.1007/s12080-011-0137-x Google Scholar
  32. Rice J, Gislason H (1996) Patterns of change in the size-spectra of numbers and diversity of the North Sea fish assemblage, as reflected in surveys and models. ICES J Mar Sci 53:1214–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rochet MJ, Benoît E (2011) Fishing destabilizes the biomass flow in the marine size spectrum. Proc R Soc B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0893 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheldon RW, Parsons T (1967) A continuous size spectrum for particulate matter in the sea. J Fish Res Board Can 24:909–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sheldon RW, Prakash A, Sutcliffe WHJ (1972) The size distribution of particles in the ocean. Limnol Oceanogr 17:327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheldon RW, Sutcliffe WH, Paranjape MA (1977) Structure of pelagic food chain and relationship between plankton and fish production. J Fish Res Board Can 34:2344–2353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shin YJ, Rochet MJ, Jennings S, Field JG, Gislason H (2005) Using size-based indicators to evaluate the ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES J Mar Sci 62:384–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silvert W, Platt T (1978) Energy flux in the pelagic ecosystem: a time-dependent equation. Limnol Oceanogr 23:813–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ursin E (1973) On the prey size preferences of cod and dab. Medd Dan Fisk Havunders, New Ser 7:84–98Google Scholar
  40. von Foerster H (1959) Some remarks on changing populations. In Stohlman F (editor) The kinetics of cellular prolifeation. Grune and Stratton, New York, pp 381–407Google Scholar
  41. Yodzis P (1981) The stability of real ecosystems. Nature 289:674–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yodzis P, Innes S (1992) Body size and consumer-resource dynamics. Am Nat 6:1151–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lai Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Uffe Høgsbro Thygesen
    • 2
  • Kim Knudsen
    • 1
  • Ken Haste Andersen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.National Institute of Aquatic ResourcesTechnical University of DenmarkCharlottenlundDenmark

Personalised recommendations