Laplacian matrices and Turing bifurcations: revisiting Levin 1974 and the consequences of spatial structure and movement for ecological dynamics
We revisit a seminal paper by Levin (Am Nat 108:207–228, 1974), where spatially mediated coexistence and spatial pattern formation were described. We do so by reviewing and explaining the mathematical tools used to evaluate the dynamics of ecological systems in space, from the perspective of recent developments in spatial population dynamics. We stress the importance of space-mediated stability for the coexistence of competing species and explore the ecological consequences of space-induced instabilities (Turing instabilities) for spatial pattern formation in predator–prey systems. Throughout, we link existing theory to recent developments in discrete spatially structured metapopulations, such as our understanding of how ecological dynamics occurring on a network can be analyzed using the Laplacian matrix and its associated eigenvalue spectrum. We underline the validity of Levin’s message, over 40 years later, and suggest it has ever-growing implications in a changing and increasingly fragmented world.
KeywordsSpatial structure Ecological landscape Stability Persistence Coexistence Networks
We thank Alan Hastings for enlightening conversations that led to the conception of this paper and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions. We dedicate this paper to the memory of Alan Turing, whose transformative work still has, more than half a century later, profound implications for myriad scientific disciplines. Turing endured the intolerance of many of his contemporaries, which preferred to condemn a brilliant scientist and war hero to the uttermost ignominy than accepting him for who he was. We are also indebted to Kevin, whose stubbornness makes studying movement in space all the more interesting.
- Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Vespignani A (2008) Dynamical processes on complex networksGoogle Scholar
- Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ (2002) Spatial structure and dynamics in a marine food web. Habitat, In, pp 19–24Google Scholar
- Berkeley SA, Hixon MA, Larson RJ, Love MS (2004) Fisheries sustainability via protection of age structure and spatial distribution of fish populations. www.fisheries.org 23–32
- Fanelli D, Cianci C, Di Patti F (2013) Turing instabilities in reaction-diffusion systems with cross diffusion. Eur Phys J B 86. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2013-30649-7
- Friedman B (1956) An abstract formulation of the method of separation of variables. In: Diaz JB, Payne LE (eds) Proceedings of the conference on differential equations. University of Maryland Bookstore, College Park, MD, pp 209–226Google Scholar
- Gilpin M, Hanski I (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Levins R (1969) Some demographic and gentic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
- Levin SA (1992) The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture. Ecology 73:1943. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941447
- MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
- Stachowicz JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities: positive interactions play a critical, but underappreciated, role in ecological communities by reducing physical or biotic stresses in existing habitats and by creating new habitats on which many species depend. Bioscience 51:235–246. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0235:mfatso]2.0.co;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tilman D, Kareiva P (1997) Spatial ecology: the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar