Advertisement

Intraspecific Competition and Evolution

  • Freddy Bugge Christiansen
  • Volker Loeschcke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Biomathematics book series (LNBM, volume 39)

Abstract

The formulation of ecological genetic models allows specific assumptions about the interaction between an individual and its environment to be translated into evolutionary forces in the population. An approach to this is the analysis of phenotypic characters related to competition coefficients through the use of the niche concept as formulated by Mac- Arthur and Levins (1967; Levins, 1968). This formulation has been used in the analysis of intraspecific competition by Roughgarden (1972), Matessi and Jayakar (1976), and Christiansen and Fenchel (1977; Fenchel and Christiansen, 19 77). The models used in these investigations are classical population genetic models with discrete non-overlapping gene-rations, where the individual fitnesses are considered as functions of the population density (Wright, 1960). Intraspecific competition for a common uniform food supply will allow the influence of competition on the growth rate to be described in terms of the total population size of the species (Volterra, 1927; Lotka, 1932) resulting in pure density dependent selection (Anderson, 19 71; Charlesworth, 19 71; Rough-garden, 1971; Clarke, 1972). On the other hand, intraspecific competition for a more varied supply of resources may make the competition experienced by an individual dependent on the genotypic composition of the population resulting in so-called density and frequency dependent selection.

Keywords

Intraspecific Competition Competition Model Resource Optimum Character Displacement Exploitative Competition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, W. W. 1971. Genetic equilibrium and population growth under density-regulated selection. Amer. Natur. 105: 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asmussen, M. A., and Feldman, M. W. 1976. Density dependent selection I. A stable feasible equilibrium may not be attainable. J. Theoret. Biol. 64: 603–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulmer, M. G. 19 74. Density dependent selection and character displacement. Amer. Natur. 108: 45–58.Google Scholar
  4. Charlesworth, B. 1971. Selection in density regulated populations. Ecology 52: 469–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiansen, F. B., and Fenchel, T. M. L977. Theories of Populations in Biological Communities. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Christiansen, F. B., and Loeschcke, V. 1980. Evolution and intraspecific exploitative competition I. One locus theory for small additive gene effects. Theoret. Popul. Biol., to appear.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, B. C. 1972. Density dependent selection. Amer. Natur. 106: 1–13,Google Scholar
  8. Feldman, M. W., Franklin, I. R., and Thomson, G. 1974. Selection in complex genetic systems I. The symmetric equilibria of the three- locus symmetric viability model. Genetics 76: 135–162.Google Scholar
  9. Fenchel, T. 1975. Character displacement and coexistence in mud snails (Hydrobiidae). Oecologia (Berl.) 20: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fenchel, T. M., and Christiansen, F. B. 1977. Selection and interspecific competition. In Measuring Selection in Natural Populations (F. B. Christiansen and T. M. Fenchel, eds.). Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 19, Springer Verlag, Berlin: 477–498.Google Scholar
  11. Fenchel, T., and Kofoed, L. H. 1976. Evidence for exploitative interspecific competition in mud snails (Hydrobiidae). Oikos 27: 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franklin. I. R., and Lewontin, R. C. 19 70. Is the gene the unit of selection? Genetics 65: 707–734.Google Scholar
  13. Gause, G. F. 19 34. The Struggle for Existence. Hafner Publ. Co., New York (Reprinted in 1964 ).Google Scholar
  14. Ginzburg, L. R. 1977. The equilibrium and stability for fi alleles under the density-dependent selection. J. Theoret. Biol. 68: 545–550.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karlin, S., and McGregor, I. 19 72. Polymorphisms for genetic and ecological systems with weak coupling. Theoret. Popul. Biol. 3: 210–2 38.Google Scholar
  16. Levene, H. 196 7. Genetic diversity and diversity of environment: Mathematical aspects. Proc. 5th Berkeley Symp. Math. Stat. Prob.: 305–316.Google Scholar
  17. Levins, R. 1968. Toward an evolutionary theory of the niche. In. Evolution and Environment (E. T. Drake, ed.). Yale Univ. Press, Conn.: 325–340.Google Scholar
  18. Lotka. A. J. 1932. The growth of mixed populations: Two species competing for a common food supply. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 22: 461–469.Google Scholar
  19. MacArthur, R. M. 19 62. Some generalized theorems of natural selection. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 48: 1893–1897.Google Scholar
  20. MacArthur, R. M. 19 72. Geographical Ecology. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  21. MacArthur, R. M., and Levins, R. 1964. Competition, habitat selection and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 51: 1207–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacArthur, R. M., and Levins, R. 1967. The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. Amer. Natur. 101: 377–385.Google Scholar
  23. Matessi, C. and Jayakar, S. D. 1976. Models of density-frequency dependent selection for the exploitation of resources I: Intraspecific competition. In Population Genetics and Ecology ( S. Karlin and E. Nevo, eds.). Academic Press, New York: 707–721.Google Scholar
  24. May, RM . 1974. On the theory of niche overlap. Theoret. Popul. Biol. 5: 297–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poulsen, E. T. 1980. A model for population regulation with density and frequency-dependent selection. J. Math. Biol., in press.Google Scholar
  26. Prout, T. 19 80. Some relationships between density independent selection and density dependent growth. Evolutionary Biology 13, in press.Google Scholar
  27. Roughgarden, J. 1971. Density-dependent natural selection. Ecology 52: 45 3–468.Google Scholar
  28. Roughgarden, J. 19 72. Evolution of niche width. Amer. Natur. 106: 683–718.Google Scholar
  29. Roughgarden, J. 1974. Species packing and the competition function with illustrations from coral reef fish. Theoret. Popul. Biol. 5: 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roughgarden, J. 19 76. Resource partitioning among competing species - A coevolutionary approach. Theoret. Popul. Biol. 9: 388–424.Google Scholar
  31. Schoener, T., and Gorman, G. 196 8. Some niche differences in three Lesser Antillean lizards of the genus Anolis. Ecology 49: 819–830.Google Scholar
  32. Singh, M., and Lewontin, R. C. 1966. Stable equilibria under optimizing selection. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 56: 1345–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slatkin, M. 19 79. Ecological character displacement. Ecology, in press.Google Scholar
  34. Volterra, V. 192 7. Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero dTindividui in specie animali conviventi. R. Comitato Talassografico Italiano, Memoria 131: 1–142 (English translation in F. M. Scudo and J. R. Ziegler: The Golden Age of Theoretical Ecology: 1923–1940. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 22, Springer Verlag, Berlin 1979 )Google Scholar
  35. Wright, S. 1935. The analysis of variance and the correlations between relatives with respect to deviations from an optimum. J. Genet. 30: 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright, S. 1959. Physiological genetics, ecology of populations and natural selection. Prespectives in Biology and Medicine 3: 107–151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Freddy Bugge Christiansen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Volker Loeschcke
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and GeneticsUniversity of AarhusAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Institute of GeneticsFree University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations