Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 441–452 | Cite as

Whence Lotka-Volterra?

Conservation laws and integrable systems in ecology
  • James P. O’DwyerEmail author
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Competition in ecology is often modeled in terms of direct, negative effects of one individual on another. An example is logistic growth, modeling the effects of intraspecific competition, while the Lotka-Volterra equations for competition extend this to systems of multiple species, with varying strengths of intra- and interspecific competition. These equations are a classic and well-used staple of quantitative ecology, providing a framework to understand species interactions, species coexistence, and community assembly. They can be derived from an assumption of random mixing of organisms, and an outcome of each interaction that removes one or more individuals. However, this framing is somewhat unsatisfactory, and ecologists may prefer to think of phenomenological equations for competition as deriving from competition for a set of resources required for growth, which in turn may undergo their own complex dynamics. While it is intuitive that these frameworks are connected, and the connection is well-understood near to equilibria, here, we ask the question: when can consumer dynamics alone become an exact description of a full system of consumers and resources? We identify that consumer-resource systems with this property must have some kind of redundancy in the original description, or equivalently there is one or more conservation laws for quantities that do not change with time. Such systems are known in mathematics as integrable systems. We suggest that integrability in consumer-resource dynamics can only arise in cases where each species in an assemblage requires a distinct and unique combination of resources, and even in these cases, it is not clear that the resulting dynamics will lead to Lotka-Volterra competition.

Keywords

Lotka-Volterra Competition Consumer-resource dynamics Integrability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Mario Muscarella, Nick Laracuente, and Alice Doucet Beaupré for constructive criticism on an earlier draft of this manuscript, and Rafael D’Andrea for productive conversations on the history of modeling colimitation. I thank two anonymous reviewers for extremely helpful comments and constructive criticism. I acknowledge Peter Abrams for sending comments and references relating to the separation of timescales approximation, and Sally Otto and Troy Day for commenting on the history of reducing the number of degrees of freedom in SIS and related models.

Funding information

This works was supported by the Simons Foundation Grant #376199 and the McDonnell Foundation Grant #220020439.

References

  1. Abrams PA (2009) Determining the functional form of density dependence: deductive approaches for consumer-resource systems having a single resource. Am Nat 174(3):321–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams PA, Rueffler C, Dinnage R (2008) Competition-similarity relationships and the nonlinearity of competitive effects in consumer-resource systems. Am Nat 172(4):463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnol’d VI (2013) Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, vol 60. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Chase J, Leibold M (2003) Ecological niches. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesson P (1990) Macarthur’s consumer-resource model. Theor Popul Biol 37(1):26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Baar HJW (1994) von Liebig’s law of the minimum and plankton ecology (1899–1991). Prog Oceanogr 33 (4):347–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Droop MR (1973) Some thoughts on nutrient limitation in algae. J Phycol 9(3):264–272Google Scholar
  9. Droop MR (1974) The nutrient status of algal cells in continuous culture. J Mar Biol Assoc U K 54(4):825–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Embree M, Liu JK, Al-Bassam MM, Zengler K (2015) Networks of energetic and metabolic interactions define dynamics in microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(50):15450–15455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher CK, Mehta P (2014) Identifying keystone species in the human gut microbiome from metagenomic timeseries using sparse linear regression. PloS One 9(7):e102451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gause GF (1932) Experimental studies on the struggle for existence. J Exp Biol 9(4):389–402Google Scholar
  13. Gause GF, Witt AA (1935) Behavior of mixed populations and the problem of natural selection. Am Nat 69(725):596–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghoul M, Mitri S (2016) The ecology and evolution of microbial competition. Trends Microbiol 24 (10):833–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gleeson SK, Tilman D (1992) Plant allocation and the multiple limitation hypothesis. Am Nat 139 (6):1322–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grilli J, Barabás G, Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S (2017) Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nature 548(7666):210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Harpole WS, Ngai JT, Cleland EE, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Bracken MES, Elser JJ, Gruner DS, Hillebrand H, Shurin JB et al (2011) Nutrient co-limitation of primary producer communities. Ecol Lett 14(9):852–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knobloch E, Wiesenfeld KA (1983) Bifurcations in fluctuating systems: the center-manifold approach. J Stat Phys 33(3):611– 637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakin WD, Van Den Driessche P (1977) Time scales in population biology. SIAM J Appl Math 32(3):694–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Letten AD, Ke P-J, Fukami T (2017) Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecol Monogr 87(2):161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levine JM, Bascompte J, Adler PB, Allesina S (2017) Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nature 546(7656):56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Am Entomol 15(3):237–240Google Scholar
  23. Lorenz EN (1992) The slow manifold what is it? J Atmos Sci 49(24):2449–2451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lotka AJ (1926) Elements of physical biology. Sci Prog Twent Century (1919–1933) 21(82):341–343Google Scholar
  25. MacArthur R (1970) Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theor Popul Biol 1(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marino S, Baxter NT, Huffnagle GB, Petrosino JF, Schloss PD (2013) Mathematical modeling of primary succession of murine intestinal microbiota.Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsden JE, Ratiu T (2013) Introduction to mechanics and symmetry: a basic exposition of classical mechanical systems, vol 17. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Mobilia M, Georgiev IT, Täuber UC (2007) Phase transitions and spatio-temporal fluctuations in stochastic lattice lotka–volterra models. J Stat Phys 128(1–2):447–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Otto SP, Day T (2011) A biologist’s guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Plank M (1995) Hamiltonian structures for the n-dimensional lotka–volterra equations. J Math Phys 36 (7):3520–3534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds SA, Brassil CE (2013) When can a single-species, density-dependent model capture the dynamics of a consumer-resource system? J Theor Biol 339:70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenzweig ML, MacArthur RH (1963) Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Am Nat 97(895):209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saito MA, Goepfert TJ, Ritt JT (2008) Some thoughts on the concept of colimitation: three definitions and the importance of bioavailability. Limnol Oceanogr 53(1):276–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaffer WM (1981) Ecological abstraction: the consequences of reduced dimensionality in ecological models. Ecol Monogr 51(4):383–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taillefumier T, Posfai A, Meir Y, Wingreen NS (2017) Microbial consortia at steady supply. eLife 6Google Scholar
  37. Tilman D (1977) Resource competition between plankton algae: an experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58(2):338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Volterra V (1926) Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118 (2972):558–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Volterra V (1928) Variations and fluctuations of the number of individuals in animal species living together. J Cons Int Explor Mer 3(1):3–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Volterra V (1931) Lectures on the mathematical theory of struggle for life. Gauthier-Villars, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. von Liebig JF (1855) Principles of agricultural chemistry: with special reference to the late researches made in E ngland. Walton & Maberly, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Zomorrodi AR, Segrè D (2016) Synthetic ecology of microbes: mathematical models and applications. J Mol Biol 428(5):837–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations