Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 395–404 | Cite as

Forcing by rare species and intransitive loops creates distinct bouts of extinction events conditioned by spatial pattern in competition communities

  • John VandermeerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Using a spatially explicit multiple species competition framework, the pattern of extinction for an effect/response competition cellular automata model is presented. It is found that, for a particular matrix with a negative row/column sum covariance, (1) there are two phases of transient behavior, presented in the framework of graph partitioning, and (2) the ultimate behavior of the system in space can be understood as mainly the operation of three distinct intransitive competitive loops. Of particular interest is the effect that a set of initially excluded species have on the final outcome of spatial pattern formation. Even though initial exclusion happens quite rapidly, and it would seem that species excluded early could not have an effect on the eventual outcomes of competition, there is a clear statistical effect, contributing to the extant literature suggesting that rare or seemingly inconsequential species can effect the behavior of the common and obvious ones.

Keywords

Spatial competition Cellular automata Transients 

Supplementary material

12080_2012_175_MOESM1_ESM.xls (32 kb)
ESM 1 (XLS 31 kb)

References

  1. Boerlijst MC, Hogeweg P (1991) Spiral wave structure in pre-biotic evolution: hypercycles stable against parasites. Physica D 48:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carpenter S, Brock WA (2010) Early warnings of regime shifts in spatial dynamics using the discrete Fourier transform. Ecosphere 1:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter SR, Ludwig D, Brock WA (1999) Management of eutrophication for lakes subject to potentially irreversible change. Ecol Appl 9:751–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Case T (1995) Surprising behavior from a familiar model and implications for competition theory. Am Nat 146:961–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Comins HN, Hassell MP, May RM (1992) The spatial dynamics of host–parasitoid systems. J Anim Ecol 61:735–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dakos V, Scheffer M, van Nes EH, Brovkin V, Petoukhov V, Held H (2008) Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. PNAS 105:14308–14312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis JA, McGuire M, Halse SA, Hamilton D, Horwitz P, McComb AJ, Froend RH, Lyons M, Sim L (2003) What happens when you add salt: predicting impacts of secondary salinization on shallow aquatic ecosystems by using an alternative-states model. Australian J> of Botany 51:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards KF, Schreiber SJ (2010) Preemption of space can lead to intransitive coexistence of competitors. Oikos 119:1201–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson CR, Seinen I (2002) Selection for restraint in competitive ability in spatial competition systems. Proc Royal Soc Lond B 269:655–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kefi S, Rietkerk M, Alados CL, Pueyo Y, Papanastasis VP, ElAich A, de Ruiter PC (2007) Spatial vegetation patterns and imminent desertification in Mediterranean arid ecosystems. Nature 449:213–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerr B, Riley MA, Feldman MW, Bohannan BJ (2002) Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock-paper-scissors. Nature 418:171–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Laird RA, Schamp BS (2006) Competitive intransitivity promotes species coexistence. Am Nat 168:182–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Laird RA, Schamp BS (2008) Does local competition increase the coexistence of species in intransitive networks? Ecology 89:1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  15. May RM (1977) Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states. Nature 269:471–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. May RM, Leonard WJ (1975) Nonlinear aspects of competition between three species SIAM J. Appl Math 29:243–253Google Scholar
  17. McCann K, Hastings A, Huxel GR (1998) Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395:794–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ott E, Alexander JC, Kan I, Sommerer JC, Yorke JA (1994) The transition to chaotic attractors with riddled basins. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 76:384–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rietkerk M, Dekker SC, de Ruiter PC, van de Koppel J (2004) Self-organized patchiness and catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Science 305:1926–1929CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Scheffer, M. (2009). Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. Scheffer M, Hosper SH, Meijer ML, Moss B, Jeppesen E (1993) Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheffer M, Basompte J, Brock WA, Brovkin V, Carpenter S, Dakos RV, Held H, van Nes EH, Rietkerk M, Sugihara G (2009) Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461:53–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Staver AC, Archibald S, Levin SA (2011) The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 14:230–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tanaka M, Nandakumar K (1994) Measurement of the degree of intransitivity in a community of sessile organisms. J of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 182:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vandermeer J (2004) Wada basins and qualitative unpredictability in ecological models: a graphical interpretation. Ecol Model 176:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vandermeer J (2011) Intransitive loops in ecosystem models: from stable foci to heteroclinic cycles. Ecol Complex 8:92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vandermeer, J., and D. Goldberg. (2003). Elementary population ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. Vandermeer JH, Pascual M (2005) Competitive coexistence through intermediate polyphagy. Ecol Complex 3:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vandermeer J, Yitbarek S (2012) Self-organized spatial pattern determines biodiversity in spatial competition. J Theor Biol 300:48–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vandermeer J, Granzow de la Cerda I, Perfecto I, Boucher D, Ruiz J, Kaufmann A (2004) Multiple basins of attraction in a tropical forest: evidence for nonequilibrium community structure. Ecology 85:575–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vellend M, Litrico I (2008) Sex and space destabilize intransitive competition within and between species. Proceedins of the Royal Society of London B 277:1875–1864Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations