Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploitation Competition and the Evolution of Interference, Cannibalism, and Intraguild Predation in Age/Size-Structured Populations

  • Conference paper
Size-Structured Populations

Abstract

There is now recognition that a “population” is actually a complex of phenotypes and age groups that vary in their interactions with the environment. For species that grow slowly through a “wide size range” (Polis 1984a), age/size structure is a major feature and determinant of population dynamics. For these species, the type and intensity of intra- and interspecific interactions depend on size. Interactions may range from neutral to predator-prey or competitive as individuals grow and relative size ratios change (e.g., see Fig. 1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abrams P (1980) Consumer functional response and competition in consumer-resource systems. Theor Popul Biol 17:80–102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alstad D (1982) Current speed and filtration rate link caddisfly phylogeny and distributional patterns on a stream gradient. Science 216:533–534.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Askew R (1971) Parasitic insects. American Elsevier, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites or predators and the effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol 44:331–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson J (1987) Smaller Zooplankton species are not superior in exploitative competition: a comment on Persson. Am Nat 129:928–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Maurer BA (1986) Body size, ecological dominance and Cope’s rule. Nature (London) 324:248–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss L (1986) Competition and community organization on hard surfaces in the sea. In: Diamond J, Case T (eds) Community Ecology. Harper & Row, New York, pp 517–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder WA (1984) Size, function, and life history. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers J, Jaksic F (1984) Time as a niche difference: the role of interference competition. Oikos 42:403–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case T, Gilpin ME (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 71:3073–3077.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Connell J (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damuth J (1981) Population density and body size in mammals. Nature (London) 290:699–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox L (1975) Cannibalism in natural populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6:87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthroux SA (1978) The ecological significance of behavioural dominance. In: Bateson P, Klopper P (eds) Perspectives in ethology. Plenum, New York, pp 17–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill D (1974) Intrinsic rate of increase, saturation density, and competitive ability. II. The evolution of competitive ability. Am Nat 108:103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hespenheide H (1973) Ecological inferences form morphological data. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries M, Lawton J (1984) Enemy free space and the structure of ecological communities. Biol J Linn Soc 23:269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May R (1975) Some notes on estimating the competition matrix. Ecology 56:737–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse D (1974) Niche breadth as a function of social dominance. Am Nat 108:818–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse D (1980) Behavioral mechanisms in ecology. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nentwig W, Wissel C (1986) A comparison of prey lengths among spiders. Oecologia (Berlin): 595-600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen L, Fretwell S, Järvinen O (1979) Interspecific aggression and the limiting similarity of close competitors: the problem of size gaps in some community arrays. Am Nat 114:117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacala S, Roughgarden J (1982) Resource partitioning and interspecific competition in two-species insular Anolis lizard communities. Science 217:444–446.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Persson L (1985) Asymmetric competition: are larger animals competitively superior? Am Nat 126:261–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Univ Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters RH, Wassenberg K (1983) The effect of body size on animal abundance. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA (1979) Diet and prey phenology of the desert scorpion, Paruroctonus mesaensis Stahnke. J Zool (London) 188:333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA (1980) Seasonal and age specific variation in the surface activity of a population of desert scorpions in relation to environmental factors. J Anim Ecol 49:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA (1980) The significance of cannibalism on the populations dynamics and surface activity of a natural population of desert scorpions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA (1981) The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12:225–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA (1984a) Age structure component of niche width and intraspecific resource partitioning: can age groups function as ecological species? Am Nat 123:541–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA (1984b) Intraspecific predation and “infant killing” among invertebrates. In: Hausfater G, Hrdy S (eds) Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives. Alsinde, New York, pp 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA (1988) Trophic and behavioral response of desert scorpions to harsh environmental periods. J Arid Environ 14:123–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, Farley RD (1979) Characteristics and environmental determinants of natality, growth and maturity in a natural population of the desert scorpion Paruroctonus mesaensis. J Zool (London) 187:517–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, Farley RD (1980) Population biology of a desert scorpion: survivorship, microhabitat and the evolution of life history strategy. Ecology 61:620–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1982) Arthropods that prey on vertebrates. Biol Rev 57:29–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1986a) Patterns of resource use and age structure among species of desert scorpion. J Anim Ecol 55:59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1986b) Scorpions, spiders and solpugids: predation and competition among distantly related taxa. Oecologia (Berlin) 71:111–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1987) Intraguild predation and competition among desert scorpions. Ecology 68:332–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, Yamashita T: Population energy budget of the desert scorpion Paruroctonus mesaensis. (in preparation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, McReynolds CN, Ford G (1985) Home range geometry of the desert scorpion Paruroctonus mesaensis. Oecologia (Berlin) 67:273–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt R (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein S (1979) Gene frequencies and the selection for inhibitory traits, with special emphasis on the adaptiveness of territoriality. Am Nat 113:317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: an introduction. Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Why is animal size so important? Univ Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1968) The Anolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49:704–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1976) Alternatives to Lotka-Volterra Competition: models of intermediate complexity. Theor Popul Biol 10:309–333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shorthouse D (1971) Studies on the biology and energetics of the scorpion Urodacus yaschenkoi (Birula 1904). Thesis, Aust Nat Univ, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1982) The status of competition theory in ecology. Ann Zool Fennici 19:241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiling P, Strong D (1983) Weak competition among Spartina stem borers, by means of murder. Ecology 64:770–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong D (1983) Natural variability and the manifold mechanisms of ecological communities. Am Nat 122:636–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland W, Parker G (1985) Distribution of unequal competitors. In: Sibley R, Smith R (eds) Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 255–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M (1979) Diet and feeding phenology of the green lynx spider, Peucetia viridans (Araneae: Oxyopidae). J Arachn 7:149–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vezina A (1985) Empirical relationships between predator and prey size among terrestrial vertebrate predators. Oecologia (Berlin) 67:555–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS (1975) The adequacy of body size as a niche difference. Am Nat 109:769–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS (1986) Adaptive indirect effects. In: Diamond J, Case T (eds) Community ecology. Harper & Row, New York, pp 437–446.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    G. A. Polis

Authors
  1. G. A. Polis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Linköping, S-581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Bo Ebenman

  2. Department of Ecology, Limnology, P.O. Box 65, S-22100, Lund, Sweden

    Lennart Persson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Polis, G.A. (1988). Exploitation Competition and the Evolution of Interference, Cannibalism, and Intraguild Predation in Age/Size-Structured Populations. In: Ebenman, B., Persson, L. (eds) Size-Structured Populations. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74001-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74001-5_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-74003-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-74001-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation