Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 15–25 | Cite as

Adaptive movement and food-chain dynamics: towards food-web theory without birth–death processes

  • Michio KondohEmail author
  • Akihiko Mougi
  • Atushi Ushimaru
  • Kensuke Nakata


Population density can be affected by its prey [resource] and predator [consumer] abundances through two different mechanisms: the alternation of birth [or somatic growth] or death rate and inter-habitat movement. While the food-web theory has traditionally been built on the former mechanism, the latter mechanism has formed the basis of a successful theory explaining the spatial distribution of organisms in the context of behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Yet, few studies have compared these two mechanisms, leaving the question of how similar (or different) predictions derived from birth–death-based and movement-based food-web theories unanswered. Here, theoretical models of the tri-trophic (resource–consumer-top predator) food chain were used to compare food-web patterns arising from these two mechanisms. Specifically, we evaluated the response of the food-chain structure to inter-patch differences in productivity for movement-based models and birth–death-based models. Model analysis reveals that adaptive movements give rise to positively correlated responses of all trophic levels to increased productivity; however, this pattern was not observed in the corresponding birth–death-based model. The movement-based model predicts that the food chain response to productivity is determined by the sensitivity of animal movement to the environmental conditions. More specifically, increasing sensitivity of a consumer or top predator leads to smaller inter-patch variance of the resource or consumer density, while increasing inter-patch variance in the consumer or resource density. In conclusion, adaptive movement provides an alternative mechanism correlating the food-web structure to environmental conditions.


Food-web theory Mathematical model Ideal free distribution Game theory Productivity Two-patch model 



This study was supported by the Research Fellowship 2014 of Ryukoku University, the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (D-1102) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MK), a Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research (no. 24657020; MK), a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (no. 25840164; AM) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (no. 23570024; AU) of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


  1. Abrams PA (1993) Effects of increased productivity on the abundances of trophic levels. Am Nat 141:351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams P (1995) Monotonic or unimodal diversity-productivity gradients: what does competition theory predict? Ecology 76:2019–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrams PA (2007) Habitat choice in predator–prey systems: spatial instability due to interacting adaptive movements. Am Nat 169:581–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrams PA, Roth J (1994) The responses of unstable food chains to enrichment. Evol Ecol 8:150–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adler PB, Raff DA, Lauenroth WK (2001) The effect of grazing on the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation. Oecologia 128:465–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allesina S, Tang S (2012) Stability criteria for complex ecosystems. Nature 483:205–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Alonzo SH (2002) State-dependent habitat selection games between predators and prey: the importance of behavioural interactions and expected lifetime reproductive success. Evol Ecol Res 4:759–778Google Scholar
  8. Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (1989) Coupling in predator–prey dynamics: ratio-dependence. J Theor Biol 139:311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bastolla U, Fortuna MA, Pascual-García A, Ferrera A, Luque B, Bascompte J (2009) The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458:1018–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolker B, Holyoak M, Krivan V, Rowe L, Schmitz O (2003) Connecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. Ecology 84:1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briggs CJ, Hoopes MF (2004) Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid–host and predator–prey models: a review. Theor Popul Biol 65:299–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowie RJ, Krebs JR (1979) Optimal foraging in patchy environments. In: Anderson RM, Turner BD, Taylor RL (eds) Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 183–205Google Scholar
  13. Cressman R, Garay J (2009) A predator–prey refuge system: evolutionary stability in ecological systems. Theor Popul Biol 76:248–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cressman R, Křivan V, Garay J (2008) Ideal free distributions, evolutionary games, and population dynamics in multiple- species environments. Am Nat 164:473–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeAngelis DL, Persson L, Rosemond AD (1995) Interaction of productivity and consumption. In: Polis G, Winemiller KO (eds) Food Webs. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 109–112Google Scholar
  16. deRuiter P, Wolters V and Moore J (2005) Dynamic food webs. Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1969) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hairstone NG, Smith FE and Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control, and competition. Am Nat 94:421–425Google Scholar
  20. Holt RD (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. Am Nat 124:377–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holt RD (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution. Theor Popul Biol 28:181–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt RD (1996) Food webs in space: an island biogeographic perspective. ​In: Polis G, Winemiller KO (eds) Food Webs. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 313–323Google Scholar
  23. Hugie DM, Dill LM (1994) Fish and game: a game theoretic approach to habitat selection by predators and prey. J Fish Biol 45(Supplement sA):151–169Google Scholar
  24. Iwasa Y (1982) Vertical migration of zooplankton: a game between predator and prey. Am Nat 120:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson AL, Ranta E, Lundberg P, Kaitala V, Ruxton GD (2004) Consumer-resource matching in a food chain when both predators and prey are free to move. Oikos 106:445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson AR, Wiens JA, Milne BT, Crist TO (1992) Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landsc Ecol 7:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kacelnik A, Krebs JR, Bernstein C (1992) The ideal free distribution and predator–prey populations. Trends Ecol Evol 7:50–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kagata H, Ohgushi T (2006) Bottom-up trophic cascades and material transfer in terrestrial food webs. Eco Res 21:26–34Google Scholar
  29. Křivan V (1997) Dynamic ideal free distribution: effects of optimal patch choice on predator–prey dynamics. Am Nat 149:164–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Křivan V, Cressman R (2009) On evolutionary stability in predator–prey models with fast behavioural dynamics. Evol Ecol Res 11:227–251Google Scholar
  31. Křivan V, Cressman R, Schneider C (2008) The ideal free distribution: a review and synthesis of the game-theoretic perspective. Theor Popul Biol 73:403–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lima SL (2002) Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lotka AJ (1925) Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins Company, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  35. McCann KS, Rasmussen JB, Umbanhowar J (2005) The dynamics of spatially coupled food webs. Ecol Lett 8:513–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McCann KS, Rooney N (2009) The more food webs change, the more they stay the same. Philos Trans R Soc B Bio Sci 364:1789–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mittelbach GG, Osenberg CW, Leibold MA (1988) Trophic relations and ontogenetic niche shifts in aquatic ecosystems. In: Ebenman B, Persson L (eds) Size-structured populations. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morales JM, Moorcroft PR, Matthiopoulos J, Frair JL, Kie JG, Powell RA, Merrill EH, Haydon DT (2010) Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:2289–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mougi A, Kondoh M (2012) Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337:349–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mougi A, Kondoh M (2014) Stabilizing effect of competition-antagonism-mutualism hybrid community and the role of community network structure. J Theor Biol 360:54–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Oksanen L, Fretwell SD, Arruda J, Niemelä P (1981) Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am Nat 118:240–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oksanen L (1990a) Exploitation ecosystems in seasonal environment. Oikos 57:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oksanen T (1990b) Exploitation ecosystems in heterogeneous habitat complexes. Evol Ecol 4:220–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Persson L, Bengtsson J, Menge BA, Power ME (1996) Productivity and consumer regulation - concepts, patterns, and mechanisms. In: Polis G, Winemiller KO (eds) Food Webs. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 396–434Google Scholar
  45. Polis G, Winemiller KO (1995) Food webs. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  46. Power M (1992) Top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs: do plants have primacy? Ecology 73:733–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenzweig ML (1971) Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science 171:385–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmitz OJ, Hambäck PA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sih A (1984) The behavioral response race between predator and prey. Am Nat 123:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strong DR (1992) Are trophic cascades all wet? Differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems. Ecology 73:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thébault E, Fontaine C (2010) Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329:853–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. van Baalen M, Sabelis MW (1999) Nonequilibrium population dynamics of “ideal and free” prey and predators. Am Nat 154:69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Volterra V (1926) Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi. Mem R Accad Naz dei Lincei 2:31–113Google Scholar
  54. Wang W, Takeuchi Y (2009) Adaptation of prey and predators between patches. J Theor Biol 258:603–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Yodzis P (1984) Energy flow and the vertical structure of real ecosystems. Oecologia 65:86–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yodzis P, Innes S (1992) Body size and consumer-resource dynamics. Am Nat 139:1151–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michio Kondoh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Akihiko Mougi
    • 2
  • Atushi Ushimaru
    • 3
  • Kensuke Nakata
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Solution Technology, Faculty of Science and TechnologyRyukoku UniversityOtsuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Biological Science, Faculty of Life and Environmental ScienceShimane UniversityMatsueJapan
  3. 3.Graduate School of Human Development and EnvironmentKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  4. 4.Kyoto Women’s UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations