Abstract
A large number of time series of abundances of insects and birds from a variety of data sets were submitted to a new density dependence test. The results varied enormously between data sets, but the relation between the frequency of statistically significant density dependence (SSDD) and the length of the series was similar to that of the power curve of the test, making the results consistent with the hypothesis of the density-dependent model being universally applicable throughout the data used. Pest and non-pest species did not differ in the incidence of SSDD. The more sampling error present in the data, the higher the percentages of SSDD. This was expected given that the power of the test increases with increasing sampling error in the data. Many of the data used here, as well as in the literature, clearly violate the basic assumption of the test that the organism concerned should be univoltine and semelparous. Yet the incidence of SSDD was the same in univoltine as in bi/polyvoltine species and the same in semelparous organisms as in birds that are reproductively active in more than one year. The seasonal migrant Autographa gamma in Britain and Czechoslovakia and even rainfall data were found to have SSDD. Statistical significance, however, does not automatically lead to the conclusion of density-dependent regulation. Any series of random variables which are in a stochastic equilibrium, such as a series of independent, identically distributed, random variables, is typically described better by the alternative (density-dependent) model than by the null (density-independent) model. Significant test results were often obtained with sloppy data, with data that clearly violate the basic assumptions of the test and with other data where an interpretation of the results in terms of densitydependent regulation was absurd. Given the fact that other explanations have to be found for significant test results for all these cases, mechanisms other than regulation may very well be applicable too where the data are entirely appropriate for the test. The test is simply a data-based choice between a model without and one with a stochastic equilibrium. A time series as such does not contain any information about the causes of the fluctuation pattern, so that one cannot expect statistics to produce such information from that time series. A significant test result using suitable data is entirely consistent with the hypothesis of density-dependent regulation, but also with any other suitable hypotheses. Because the test results were generally consistent with the hypothesis of a universal applicability of the density-dependence model, a negative test result may only mean that the time series was not long enough for the density dependence that was present to become statistically significant. Positive results are difficult to interpret, but so are negative results. A final decision needs to be based not so much on the test result as on much detailed information about the population concerned. Because the “density-dependence test” does not test for the presence of the mechanism of density-dependent regulation and because of the loaded, multiple meanings of the term “density-dependence”, calling the test a “test of statistical density dependence” may be preferable.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1954) The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1984) The ecological web, University of Chicago Press. Chicago London
Baars MA (1979) Catches in pitfall traps in relation with mean densities of carabid beetles. Oecologia 41:25–46
Berryman AA (1991) Stabilization or regulation: what it all means! Oecologia 86:140–143
Croin Michielsen N, Van der Meijden E, Otten JJM (1974) Vogelpopulaties, Centraal Nestkast Onderzoek, Vogelringstation. Meijendel Meded 3:1–88
Darsie RF, MacCreary D, Stearn LA (1953) Proc 40th Ann Meeting new Jersey Mosquito Exterm Assoc 1953:169–190
Den Boer PJ (1986) Density dependence and the stabilization of animal numbers. 1. The winter moth. Oecologia 69:507–512
Den Boer PJ (1987) Density dependence and the stabilization of animal numbers. 2. The pine looper. Neth J Zool 37:220–237
Den Boer PJ (1990) On the stabilization of animal numbers. Problems of testing. 3. What do we conclude from significant test results? Oecologia 83:38–46
Den Boer PJ (1991) Seeing the trees for the wood: random walks or bounded fluctuations of population size? Oecologia 86:484–491
Den Boer PJ, Reddingius J (1989) On the stabilization of animal numbers. Problems of testing. 2. Confrontation with data from the field. Oecologia 79:143–149
Dennis B, Taper M (1993) Density dependence in time series observations of natural populations: estimation and testing. Ecology (in press)
Dolnik VR, Paevskii VA (1980) Dynamics of numbers in Baltic bird populations in 1960–76. Sov J Ecol 10:316–325
Hanski I (1990) Density dependence, regulation and variability in animal populations. Philos Trans R Soc London B 330:141–150
Hanski I, Woiwod IP (1991) Delayed density-dependence. Nature 350:28
Hassell MP, Latto J, May RM (1989) Seeing the wood for the trees: Detecting density dependence from existing life-table studies. J Anim Ecol 58:883–892
Holyoak M, Lawton JH (1992) Detection of density dependence from annual censuses of bracken-feeding insects. Oecologia 91:425–430
Kendeigh SC (1979) Invertebrate populations of the deciduous forest: fluctuations and relations to weather (Ill Biol Monogr 50). University of Illinois Press. Urbana
Kendeigh SC (1982) Bird populations in east central Illinois: fluctuations, variations and development over half a century (Ill Biol Monogr 52). University of Illinois Press, Urbana
Nicholson AJ (1933) The balance of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 2:132–178
Nicholson AJ, Bailey VA (1935) The balance of animal populations. Part 1. Proc Zool Soc London 1935:551–598
Novak I (1983) An efficient light-trap for catching insects. Acta Entomol Bohemoslov 80:29–34
Novak I, Severa F (1981) Thieme's vlindergids. WJ Thieme, Zutphen
Osterlof S, Stolt B-O (1982) Population trends indicated by birds ringed in Sweden. Ornis Scand 13:135–140
Ôtake A (1966a) Analytical studies of light trap records in the Hokuriku district. I. The rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Appl Entomol Zool 1:177–188
Ôtake A (1966b) Analytical studies of light trap records in the Hokuriku district. II. The green rice leafhopper, Nephotettix cincticeps. Res Popul Ecol 8:62–68
Ôtake A (1978) Population characteristics of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), with special reference to differences in Japan and the tropics. J Appl Ecol 15:385–394
Ôtake A, Kono T (1970) Regional characteristics in population trends of the smaller brown planthopper, Laodelphax striatellus (Fallén) (Hemiptera: Delphacidae), a vector of rice stripe disease: an analytical study of light trap records. Bull Shikoku Agric Exp Stat 21:127–147
Pankratz A (1983) Forecasting with unvariate Box-Jenkins models. Wiley, New York
Pollard E, Lakhani KH, Rothery P (1987) The detection of density-dependence from a series of annual censuses. Ecology 68:2046–2055
Reddingius J (1971) Gambling for existence. A discussion of some theoretical problems in animal population ecology. Acta Biotheor 20:1–208
Reddingius J (1990) Models for testing. A secondary note. Oecologia 83:50–52
Reddingius J, Den Boer PJ (1989) On the stabilization of animal numbers. Problems of testing. 1. Power estimates and estimation errors. Oecologia 78:1–8
Regensburg BA, Wanders EAJ (1978) Vogelpopulatieonderzoek-Rapport 1975. Meijendel Meded 6:1–43
Rejmánek M, Spitzer K (1982) Bionomic strategies and long-term fluctuations in abundance of Noctuidae (Lepidoptera). Acta Entomol Bohemoslov 79:81–96
Royama T (1977) Population persistence and density dependence. Ecol Monogr 47:1–35
Royama T (1981) Fundamental concepts and methodology for the analysis of animal population dynamics, with particular reference to univoltine species. Ecol Monogr 51:473–493
Solow AR (1990) Testing for density dependence. A cautionary note. Oecologia 83:47–49
Solow AR (1991) Response, Oecologia 86:146
Solow AR, Steele JH (1990) On sample size, statistical power and the detection of density dependence. J Anim Ecol 59:1073–1076
Stubbs M (1977) Density dependence in the life-cycles of animals and its importance in K- and r-strategies. J Anim Ecol 46:677–688
Van Dongen H, Ros JH (1973) Vogelpopulaties and Vogelringstation. Rapport 1972. Meijendel Meded 2:1–65
Vickery WL, Nudds TD (1991) Testing for density-dependent effects in sequential censuses. Oecologia 85:419–423
Volterra V (1931) Leçons sur la théorie mathématique de la lutte pour la vie, Gauthier-Villars, Paris
Williams CB (1971) Insect migration (New Naturalist 36). Collins, London
Windsor DM (1990) Climate and moisture variability in a tropical forest: Long-term records from Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Smithsonian Contrib Earth Sci 29:1–145
Woiwod IP, Hanski I (1992) Patterns of density dependence in moths and aphids. J Anim Ecol 61:619–629
Wolda H (1987) Altitude, habitat and tropical insect diversity. Biol J Linn Soc London 30:313–323
Wolda H, Broadhead E (1985) The seasonality of Psocoptera in two tropical forests in Panama. J Anim Ecol 54:519–530
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wolda, H., Dennis, B. Density dependence tests, are they?. Oecologia 95, 581–591 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317444
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317444