Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 66, Issue 5, pp 975–1008

Climate and competition: The effect of moving range boundaries on habitat invasibility

Article
  • 191 Downloads

Abstract

Predictions for climate change include movement of temperature isoclines up to 1000 m/year, and this is supported by recent empirical studies. This paper considers effects of a rapidly changing environment on competitive outcomes between species. The model is formulated as a system of nonlinear partial differential equations in a moving domain. Terms in the equations decribe competition interactions and random movement by individuals. Here the critical patch size and travelling wave speed for each species, calculated in the absence of competition and in a stationary habitat, play a role in determining the outcome of the process with competition and in a moving habitat. We demonstrate how habitat movement, coupled with edge effects, can open up a new niche for invaders that would be otherwise excluded.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramowitz, M. and I. A. Stegun (Eds), (1965). Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables, New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, D. and H. Weinberger (1975). Nonlinear diffusion in population genetics, combustion, and nerve pulse propagation, in Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, pp. 5–49.Google Scholar
  3. Cantrell, R. S., C. Cosner and W. F. Fagan (1998). Competitive reversals inside ecological reserves: the role of external habitat degradation. J. Math. Biol. 37, 491–533.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, J. S. et al. (1998). Reid’s paradox of rapid plant migration. BioScience 48, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durret, R. (2002). Mutual Invadability Implies Coexistence in Spatial Models, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society number 740.Google Scholar
  6. Fagan, W. F., R. S. Cantrell and C. Cosner (1999). How habitat edges change species interactions. Am. Naturalist 153, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Levin, S. A. (1974). Dispersion and population interactions. Am. Naturalist 108, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, A. M., B. Li and H. F. Weinberger (2002). Spreading speed and linear determinacy for two-species competition models. J. Math. Biol. 45, 219–233.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ludwig, D., D. G. Aronson and H. F. Weinberger (1979). Spatial patterning of the spruce budworm. J. Math. Biol. 8, 217–258.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Malcolm, J. R. and A. Markham (2000). Global warming and terrestrial biodiversity decline. A Report Prepared for WWF (available online at http://panda.org/resources/publications/climate/speedkills).
  11. Okubo, A. (1980). Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Mathematical Models, Berlin etc.: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shigesada, N. and K. Kawasaki (1997). Biological Invasions: Theory and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, H. L. and P. Waltman (1995). The Theory of the Chemostat, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Smoller, J. (1994). Shock Waves and Reaction-Diffusion Equations, NY etc.: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Speirs, D. C. and W. S. C. Gurney (2001). Population persistence in rivers and estuaries. Ecology 82, 1219–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, and Centre for Mathematical BiologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations