Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Soundscape ecology wikipedia , lookup
Ficus rubiginosa wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
The Population Bomb wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Storage effect wikipedia , lookup
Maximum sustainable yield wikipedia , lookup
Human population planning wikipedia , lookup
e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 385–390 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel The niche construction paradigm in ecological time John Vandermeer Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Niche construction has emerged as a central focus for a variety of phenomena that operate Received 22 August 2007 over evolutionary time. Although its importance in ecological time cannot be denied, an Received in revised form analysis of expected ecological dynamics of the concept has not yet appeared in the liter- 4 March 2008 ature. Using the concepts of necessary and sufficient population, an equilibrium approach Accepted 7 March 2008 to the phenomenon is developed. The equilibrium theory states that there is a balance Published on line 15 April 2008 between the need for a certain population to maintain the constructed niche and the size of the population that can be sustained by that niche. Keywords: © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Niche Equilibrium Population dynamics A recent literature in evolutionary theory emphasizes the idea of niche construction (Olden-Smee et al., 2004; Lewontin, 2001; Silver and Di Paolo, 2006; Kerr et al., 1999), in which the convention of a distinct separation between organism and its environment is challenged. Rather, it is argued, the organism has a profound effect on the very environment that generates the selective pressure to which the population of the organism responds with genetic change, thus effecting evolution. This point of view is recognized as a new, if perhaps controversial, idea in evolutionary biology (Vandermeer, 2004). Application of the idea at the level of evolutionary theory is, at least conceptually, evident. However, if environments are being constructed by organisms, there must be ecological consequences in addition to the evolutionary ones (Vandermeer, 2004; Hui et al., 2004; Donohue, 2005). The purpose of the present communication is to explore that idea. At a most general level it has long been appreciated that organisms affect their environment, and that the affected environment can thus have a reciprocal effect on other organisms, creating an environment different from what it would have been before having been changed. For example, Goldberg (1990) provided an important framework for understanding competition between plant species by noting that competi- E-mail address: [email protected]. 0304-3800/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.03.009 tion could be divided into response and effect competition—a species “effects” changes in the environment to which another species must “respond”. To put this insight into the framework of constructivism, species A constructs the environment to which species B must respond. Similarly, the literature on “ecosystem engineers” (Berkenbusch and Rowden, 2003; Flecker, 1996; Jones et al., 1997) implicitly incorporates the same idea, that some species alter the physical environment to such an extent that others are profoundly affected. And all species interactions from predation to competition to mutualism, ultimately, although perhaps trivially, fall into this same general framework. Despite this long history of appreciation of the topic, if only indirectly, a theoretical framework for studying niche construction in ecological time has not appeared in the literature, at least not explicitly. I here propose such a framework based on two simple ideas, first the “necessary” population and second, the “sustainable” population. The approach is only intraspecific, although implications for interspecific applications (as in the examples in this paragraph) are obvious. First, consider the concept of the necessary population. Suppose that a given niche form is dictated by some critical factor—for example, the amount of fine leaf matter in a 386 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 385–390 forest understory. As an artificial example consider a species of milliped that on the one hand shreds leaves in the course of eating, but, on the other hand, requires a bed of finely shredded leaves for oviposition. Thus, the initial shredding of leaves constructs a favorable environment for egg laying. Since leaves are continually falling, it is necessary to continue processing them to maintain a particular mixture of shredded and non-shredded leaf material. Theoretically, if one knew the rate at which leaves were falling, and the rate of shredding which converts the leaves to fine matter, one could calculate the number of millipeds necessary to maintain some particular fraction of fine leaf material in the leaf litter. This is the first critical idea—the “necessary population”. It is the number of individuals necessary to maintain a particular constructed niche. Second, consider the concept of the sustainable population. The niche affects the organism and effectively dictates how many individuals can be sustained at a given level of constructed niche. This number is the sustainable population. Thus, for example, if the fine leaf matter in the above example is only a small percentage of the total, the sustainable population of the millipeds will be very low, since oviposition sites will be limited. If the fine organic matter is a high fraction, the sustainable population of the millipeds will be very high. 1. The equilibrium theory of constructivism The relationship between the necessary and sustainable populations defines a clear dynamic for the population and its niche. This dynamic is illustrated graphically in Fig. 1a. Consider a population that is located at N* with a niche of E* , in Fig. 1a. That population will be above its sustainable level and thus must decrease. However, that population will be below the necessary population, which is to say, the population density necessary to maintain the niche level at E* , and thus the niche level itself must decline. Following this reasoning for the rest of the possible states of N and E, we see the overall dynamic behavior as illustrated in Fig. 1a, wherein any population/niche combination will eventually come to lie at the intersection of the two lines representing the necessary and sustainable populations, indicated with a solid dot in the figure. If the relationship between the sustainable and necessary functions is reversed (Fig. 1b), the dynamic reverses itself and the intersection of the two functions becomes an unstable point. Thus, any combination of N and E will result in either the extinction of the population or a continuously increasing population and niche. The latter is obviously impossible in the real world, so some constraining force must be involved, as discussed below. However, the basic principle of either a stable or unstable relationship between N and E is clear at this level of abstraction. Two categories of non-linearities are likely to be involved in this formulation. First, it is most likely that increases in the necessary population at high levels of niche will increase more dramatically than at low levels, which is to say that it is impossible to increase niches without limit. Second, it is likely that increases in sustainable levels will saturate at high levels of niche. Given these two likely non-linearities, we obtain the Fig. 1 – Basic relationship between sustainable and necessary population as a function of the ecological niche. Fig. 2 – Incorporating non-linearities in the basic unstable situation of construction dynamics. picture illustrated in Fig. 2. The basic pattern, then, from a constructivist approach is that a population may either form a globally stable situation (Fig. 1a), or it may form a bistable case with a higher stable state for both N and E, and a zero state for either N or E (Fig. 2). Thus, we see the generation of an Allee effect, where a critical population density is necessary (along with a critical niche) for the population to be successful. 2. Exploring the dynamics of constructivism The above equilibrium approach is a first approximation presented largely for heuristic purposes. Here a more analytical 387 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 385–390 avenue is explored. In devising a dynamic framework we immediately face the fundamental question of facultative versus obligate construction. In a facultative constructive niche the organism survives even in the absence of niche construction, nevertheless benefits further from the construction. In an obligate constructive niche the organism dies in the absence of construction. Similarly, a facultative organism survives even in a non-constructive niche, but benefits further from the construction, whereas an obligate organism does not survive unless a constructed niche becomes available. Given this formulation there are four distinct cases to be considered, based on the orthogonal classification of facultative versus obligate niche crossed with facultative versus obligate organism. The following more analytical development will clarify these ideas. Let the dynamics of the population be represented by the coupled equations, dN (K + kE − N) = rN dt K + kE (1a) dE = aN + m − bE dt (1b) where the basic formulation for the organism is the logistic equation, with K as the carrying capacity, r the intrinsic rate of natural increase, k the conversion factor with which the environmental measure (E) is converted to organism equivalents, a the rate of niche construction (the amount of E produced by an individual organism), m the inherent production of E (independent of the organism) and b the rate of decay of the niche. Isoclines are, N = K + kE N= b m E− . a a Both K and r may be either positive or negative, imposing a facilitative/obligate dichotomy on both the niche and population dimension. Based on these two dichotomies, a four-fold classification results, as mentioned above and as presented in Table 1. The equilibrium solutions for each of these four cases are elementary and are displayed graphically in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3 are the four qualitatively distinct outcomes for both homotypic (either both facilitative or both obligate) cases. In the facilitative homotypic case (Fig. 3a) the system either moves toward a stable equilibrium point or increases without limit, much like the simple case presented in Section 1. In the obligate homotypic case (Fig. 3b) the system either declines to zero Fig. 3 – The four distinct homotypic cases. Isoclines for niche dynamics bold, for population dynamics regular. or has an Allee effect in which a minimum population number and niche quantity is required for a successful population, but if successful, the population increases without limit. In Fig. 4 are the four qualitatively distinct outcomes for each of the two heterotypic cases (i.e., either niche obligate and consumer facilitative or consumer obligate and niche facilitative). Basically four qualitatively distinct outcomes are observed for each of the two heterotypic cases—(1) an Allee effect with ever increasing population and niche at higher values, (2) a stable equilibrium point, (3) decomposition of the system, and (4) increasing without limit. These outcomes, in both Figs. 3 and 4, are equivalent, with complications, to the graphical equilibrium theory presented in Section 1. The niche construction framework is reminiscent of earlier suggestions, such as the “community effect” (the effect of all species on the species of concern) versus the “species effect” (the effect of that species on all the other species) (Vandermeer, 1972) or the response and effect framework Table 1 – The four distinct cases of niche construction based on facultative versus obligate relationships K≤0 K>0 m≤0 Obligate organism Obligate niche construction Facultative organism Obligate niche construction m>0 Obligate organism Facultative niche construction Facultative organism Facultative niche construction 388 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 385–390 Fig. 4 – The two heterotypic cases. Isoclines for niche dynamics bold, for population dynamics normal. (Goldberg, 1990), both of which were designed to apply to the situation of interspecific competition. However, with the constructivist framework presented here, such dichotomous schema are relevant also to a single population. That is, the population has an “effect” on its niche and must “respond” to that niche. Given this framework, the parameters a and k take on the meanings of effect and response, respectively. All the various cases in Figs. 3 and 4 can thus be interpreted as stemming from particular balances between the obligate/facilitative dichotomy and the effect/response dichotomy. However, the tacit assumption made thus far is that the effect on the niche is a positive one, corresponding to the use of the word “constructive”. Casting the problem in terms of an organism’s “effect” on its niche, it is clear that the effect could be either positive or negative, indeed is usually thought to be negative in the context of competition. Thus, it makes sense to relax the assumption that parameter a must be positive. If parameter a is negative, the isocline of the niche dynamics has a negative slope and all cases that include an obligate niche become uninteresting. Only with a facilitative niche can there be a solution in the positive quadrant [i.e., if (K/k) < (m/b)], and that solution must be oscillatory, indeed it must be a stable focus, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Fig. 5 – The two distinct cases of niche “destruction”. e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 385–390 Fig. 6 – Obligate population and facilitative niche in the context of a construction/destruction switch as a function of population density (i.e., a system composed of Eq. (1a) and Eq. (2)). With the strictly linear approach of system 1, we are forced into a choice between niche construction (a > 0) or niche “destruction” (a < 0). More likely is the case in which a small population will engage in niche construction but a larger population be characterized by niche destruction, in which case the parameter a will be a decreasing function of N. Thus, equation (1b) becomes, dE = (f − gN)N + m − bE dt (2) with isocline, E= 1 (fN − gN2 + m) b which is curvilinear and represents one solution to the continuously expanding populations in various cases of Figs. 2–4, as illustrated in Fig. 6 (compare with Fig. 2). 3. Discussion The concept of niche construction, while gaining influence in evolutionary biology, has hardly been mentioned in its ecological time frame, even though concepts such as response/effect (Goldberg, 1990), or community/species effect (Vandermeer, 1972), or ecological engineering (Berkenbusch and Rowden, 2003; Flecker, 1996; Jones et al., 1997) are very closely related to the general idea. Yet one would be hard-pressed to find an ecologist that would deny the importance of the phenomenon. Here, the idea is developed in very general terms, proposing that the niche construction itself will be of a density dependent form, and thus there will be a certain popula- 389 tion density that will be necessary to maintain the niche at a particular level, what is termed the “necessary” population. And, the parallel idea is that the population responds to the constructed niche, reaching a sustainable level but not beyond. Thus, the two key ideas are the necessary population and the sustainable population. Casting these two ideas in dynamic relationship to one another, we arrive at a simple equilibrium framework for studying their equilibrium properties. The overall qualitative dynamics that naturally emerge (Figs. 1 and 2) are reflected in the more analytical approach (Figs. 3–6), with some added complications. Namely, it will obviously be the case that some niche construction simply adds to a population’s well-being, in which case that population can be said to respond to niche construction in a facultative way, while other niche construction will be clearly necessary for the survival of the species, in which case that population is obliged to construct its niche. This is similar to the facultative/obligate dichotomy well-known in mutualisms (Vandermeer and Boucher, 1978). However, the niche itself is subject to the same analysis. Some niche measures simply exist in the absence of any constructive activity of the population and thus are facultatively increased by the population, others do not exist at all in the absence of the population, and are thus obligate. Not explicitly treated in the current paper, yet certainly important in a more general formulation of the niche construction idea is its application at an interspecific level. Indeed, conceptual frameworks such as the response/effect competition framework of Goldberg (1990) are by nature interspecific and conceptually fall within the same sort of framework. The “effect” competition is essentially a negative niche construction. Ecological engineering by one species to the benefit of another would also fall within this general framework. While a treatment of this interspecific effect is certainly warranted, it is beyond the intended scope of the present paper, even though the initial motivating examples were actually interspecific. There also exists an evident case of niche construction that cannot really be included in the present formulation, that in which an individual manufactures some aspect of its own niche that has relatively no effect on other individuals of the population. Nests, burrows and webs, for example, are clearly examples of constructed environments, but they do not translate into population-level density dependent effects and are more akin to other individual traits such as skin color, toxicity or flight ability. The current theoretical formulation is not intended to incorporate such individual-level constructive activities. Furthermore, while niches are constructed by organisms, they are also “destructed” by organisms. There is thus an evident dichotomy in which niche destruction parallels niche construction. While niche destruction has been taken as a foundation of competition theory, it is rarely considered as happening within the same population. Here, the idea of a continuum of niche destruction to niche construction, based on the population density of the population is presented. A key non-linearity emerges from such a consideration (Fig. 6), that provides a mechanistic basis for the obviously necessary control of the population at higher densities. 390 e c o l o g i c a l m o d e l l i n g 2 1 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 385–390 references Berkenbusch, K., Rowden, A.A., 2003. Ecosystem engineering—moving away from ‘just-so’ stories. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27, 67–73. Donohue, K., 2005. Niche construction through phonological plasticity: life history dynamics and ecological consequences. New Phytologist 166, 83–92. Flecker, A.S., 1996. Ecosystem engineering by a dominant detritivore in a diverse tropical stream. Ecology 77, 1845–1854. Goldberg, D.E., 1990. Components of resource competition in plant communities. In: Grace, J., Tilman, D. (Eds.), Perspectives in Plant Competition. Academic Press, pp. 27–49. Hui, C., Li, Z.Z., Yue, D.X., 2004. Metapopulation dynamics and distribution, and environmental heterogeneity induced by niche construction. Ecological Modelling 177, 107– 1189. Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M., 1997. Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78, 1946–1957. Kerr, B., Schwilk, D.W., Bergman, A., Feldman, M.W., 1999. Rekindling an old flame: a haploid model for the evolution and impact of flammability in resprouting plants. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1, 807–833. Lewontin, R.C., 2001. Natural History and formalism in evolutionary genetics. In: Singh, R.S., Krimbas, C.B., Paul, D.B., Beatty, J. (Eds.), Thinking About Evolution: Historical, Philosophical, and Political Perspectives. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Olden-Smee, G.J., Laland, K.N., Feldman, M.W., 2004. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. Silver, M., Di Paolo, E., 2006. Spatial effects favour the evolution of niche construction. Theoretical Population Biology 70, 387–400. Vandermeer, J.H., 1972. The covariance of the community matrix. Ecology 53, 187–189. Vandermeer, J.H., 2004. Niche construction. Olding-Smee et al. Science 303, 472–474. Vandermeer, J.H., Boucher, D., 1978. Varieties of mutualistic interaction in population models (Vandermeer and Boucher). Journal of Theoretical Biology 74, 549–558.