bio 299 projects - biological sciences · bio 299 projects available! lotka volterra lab based...
TRANSCRIPT
Bio 299 Projects Available!
Lotka Volterra Lab based competitionCompetitive exclusion principleResource competitionCompetition and NichesCharacter displacement
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Bio 299 Projects
• A number of new projects have been posted since February 16th. !Just a reminder that applications for Biology 299 projects are now being accepted.! The deadline for applications is March 26th. !For more information students can check the course website at www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses/biol299/ !
Thursday, March 4, 2010
There are four ways to plot these two species together
Each red arrow is a vector of the combined direction of
both species.
Species 1 increasing while species 2 is
decreasing
Fig13.4 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Example d: Isoclines for the two species cross; the K values on each axis are lower than the K/a values
Two species coexist when each species is regulated more by intraspecific competition rather than by competition with the other species,.
From N1 axis:
K2/a21>K1
thus K2>K1α21
Indicating that species 2 is regulated more by intraspecific competition than by interspecific competition
From the N2 axis:
K2<K1/α12
so K2α12<K1
Indicating that species 1 is regulated more by intraspecific competition than by interspecific competition
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Biom
ass
(rel
ativ
e vo
lum
e) When both paramecieum species were grown alone carrying capacity was determined by intraspecific competition for food
For both species changes in food density result in changes to carrying capacity
Lab Models of competition
Gause 1934
Fig 13.5 Molles and Cahill
Fig 13.5 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
What differences do you notice when Paramecium species are grown together compared to when they were grown separately?
How about between low and high resources when grown together?
Fig13.5 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
When the two are grown together P. aurelia survived while P. caudatum declined.
Reduction in food concentration resulted in local extinction of P. caudatum. This suggests that reduced resources increase intensity of competition.
Fig13.6 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Competitive Exclusion Principle“Complete competitors cannot coexist” (Hardin 1960)
If species that are similar in their ecology come into competition one of them will persist and the other will go locally extinct.
What does this mean?
Similar habitat, food source etc
BUT. . . . . .
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Competitive Exclusion PrincipleIf this is true why are there so many examples of species that appear to coexist?
http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20081230/bnlonnhlontsn430_62017.jpghttp://www.buxtononline.net/2008e/meadowflowers3.jpg
http://k41.pbase.com/u45/chammett/upload/29290136.vansanimalsatwatering.jpghttp://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03mex/logs/sept30/media/deep_fish_diversity_600.jpg
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Maybe competition in those communities isn’t occurring at all! So competitive exclusion can’t
occur.
EnvironmentPredationDisease
May have greater effect on species
Actually we find that in many cases there is both coexistence and competitive exclusion going on and it depend on how you look at
things
Thursday, March 4, 2010
How species can coexist?Spatial heterogeneity
Heterogeneity: an object or system consisting of multiple items having a large number of structural variations
Areas of low resources - High interspecific competition
Areas of moderate resources - Moderate interspecific competition
Areas of High resources - No interspecific competition
Can substitute resource with environmental stress, disease, predation and get same result
Thursday, March 4, 2010
How species can coexist?Variation in competitive abilities within a species (Lotka Volterra assumes α21 is constant.)
Separately grown
Grown together
Fig13.7 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
How species can coexist?
Alone
Together
Fig13.8 Molles and CahillFig13.7 Molles and CahillThursday, March 4, 2010
Does humidity and temperature vary in natural landscapes?
Would you expect competition between two species then to also vary?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Resource CompetitionSelf thinning - intraspecific competition
Over time population is made up of fewer but larger individuals
http://www.harvestwizard.com/lettuce4.jpg
http://www.norcalblogs.com/sustainable/2007/10/the_lettuce_dilemma.html
http://www.strocel.com/something-is-eating-my-plants/
Lettuce seedlings
Lettuce ready for harvest
Guy born with Lettuce headThursday, March 4, 2010
Resource CompetitionSelf thinning - intraspecific competition
Over time population is made up of fewer but larger individuals
What would this look like if there wasn’t a -3/2 self thinning rule?
(Log
arith
m o
f Tot
al b
iom
ass)
Fig13.9 Molles and Cahill
Fig13.9 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
How species can coexist?
Other mechanisms include:i) Competitive equivalenceSpecies on average win and lose about the same number of times across the landscapeii) non equilibrium conditionsCompetitive exclusion is not instantaneous - so before it occurs species are in coexistence (even though this relationship is not stable).
Think about spatial and temporal scale.
Could your conclusions about who wins and who loses change if you look at a relatively small portion of the landscape compared to a larger one?
Could your conclusions about who wins and who loses if you look at a relatively small time frame compared to a larger one?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Intraspecific competition
Planthoppers grown with varying densities of Spartina seedlings
http://www.dpughphoto.com/images/planthopper%20acanalonia%20conica
%20mason%20farm%2072207.JPGhttp://epod.typepad.com/.a/
6a0105371bb32c970b0120a560a675970c-750wi
Resource limited!
Fig13.11 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Intraspecific Interference competition
Floater: Male song sparrows without established territories within habitat. Challenge territorial males or wait for then to die!
http://ib.berkeley.edu/birdgroup/birdgroup_files/Song_Sparrow.jfif
Owner’s age and health important in likelihood of intrusion Older males less physically fitYounger males less experienced
Fig13.12 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
If you were crazy with hunger for ice cream who would you approach?
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/05/04-week/
http://www.archiesicecream.com/gallery/slideshow.php?set_albumName=
Imagine photo of small boy
with ice cream
Thursday, March 4, 2010
French Fries à la mode
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Overview of Competition in Natural SystemsHow important is competition in the ecology and evolution of natural species?
So far we have said important but not always.
Reviews of the experiments done in this area of science show this.Tom Schoener (1983), Joe Connell (1983), Jessica Gurevitch ( 1992).Reviews - analyses of many many experiments. From literature.
Competition intensities differ amongst animals compared to plants. Why should this be?
Plants grow in close proximity -intense light competition, root competition.
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/photos/CorcovadoSecUnderstory00.jpg
Tropical jungle understory
http://images.travelpod.com/users/mlloyd/churchill-2006.1163371560.tundra-w-bear2.jpg
Bear on frozen tundra
Thursday, March 4, 2010
For plant ecologists one of the big question has been:
How does competition vary with resource abundance (resource gradient)?
gradient: a graded change in the magnitude of some physical quantity
Exam question - define “gradient” in the biological sense
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Overview of Competition in Natural Systems
Phil Grime vs the ROTWGrime: Tolerance to stress is more important than competitive ability in unproductive (stressful) area. Life history of plants found in marginal habitats are suited to deal with enviroment rather than competition. In productive areas life history of plants are geared towards competition. Grime(1973, 1977, etc etc)
Tilman: In both areas of low and high productivity plants that are best at drawing down resources wins. Competitive ability is important in both cases.1987.
Newman (1973): Competition overall stays the same over productivity gradient BUT competition for soil decreases while competition for light increases.
Productivity
Nutrient poor ----- Soil --------Nutrient rich
Light availability high ----- Light -------- Light availability lowROTW = rest of the world
Fig13.13 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Epic competition study by Richard Reader 1994 (University of Guelph Ontario Canada):
20 teams
Identical studies at 12 sites throughout world along productivity gradientsIdentical species and methodsNo evidence that competition varied with productivity!
Fig13.14 Molles and Cahill
Thursday, March 4, 2010