1. Chapter 15: Dynamics of Consumer-Resource Interactions
4/19/2017

2. Population Cycles of Canadian Hare and Lynx
Charles Elton’s seminal paper focused on fluctuations of mammals in the Canadian boreal forests.
Elton’s analyses were based on trapping records maintained by the Hudson’s Bay Company
of special interest in these records are the regular and closely linked fluctuations in populations of the lynx and its principal prey, the snowshoe hare
What causes these cycles?
4/19/2017

3. 4/19/2017

4. Some Fundamental Questions
The basic question of population biology is:
what factors influence the size and stability of populations?
Because most species are both consumers and resources for other consumers, this basic question may be refocused:
are populations limited primarily by what they eat or by what eats them?
4/19/2017

5. More Questions
Do predators reduce the size of prey populations substantially below the carrying capacity set by resources for the prey?
this question is prompted by interests in management of crop pests, game populations, and endangered species
Do the dynamics of predator-prey interactions cause populations to oscillate?
this question is prompted by observations of predator- prey cycles in nature, such as Elton’s lynx and hare
4/19/2017

6. Consumers can limit resource populations.
An example: populations of cyclamen mites, a pest of strawberry crops in California, can be regulated by a predatory mite:
cyclamen mites typically invade strawberry crops soon after planting and build to damaging levels in the second year
predatory mites invade these fields in the second year and keep cyclamen mites in check
Experimental plots in which predatory mites were controlled by pesticide had cyclamen mite populations 25 times larger than untreated plots.
4/19/2017

7. 4/19/2017

8. What makes an effective predator?
Predatory mites control populations of cyclamen mites in strawberry plantings because, like other effective predators:
they have a high reproductive capacity relative to that of their prey
they have excellent dispersal powers
they can switch to alternate food resources when their primary prey are unavailable
4/19/2017

9. Consumer Control in Aquatic Ecosystems
An example: sea urchins exert strong control on populations of algae in rocky shore communities:
in urchin removal experiments, the biomass of algae quickly increases:
in the absence of predation, the composition of the algal community also shifts:
large brown algae replace coralline and small green algae that can persist in the presence of predation
4/19/2017

10. Predator and prey populations often cycle.
Population cycles observed in Canada are present in many species:
large herbivores (snowshoe hares, muskrat, ruffed grouse, ptarmigan) have cycles of 9-10 years:
predators of these species (red foxes, lynx, marten, mink, goshawks, owls) have similar cycles
small herbivores (voles and lemmings) have cycles of 4 years:
predators of these species (arctic foxes, rough-legged hawks, snowy owls) also have similar cycles
cycles are longer in forest, shorter in tundra
4/19/2017

11. Herbivores can control plant populations
Klamath weed, or St. John’s wart, became a widespread pest following its introduction into the western US
4/19/2017

12. Infestation of Klamath weed brought under control by introduced beetles
4/19/2017

13. Impact of cattle grazing
4/19/2017

14. 4/19/2017

15. Many predator and prey populations increase and decrease in regular cycles
4/19/2017

16. 4/19/2017

17. Why?
Hare populations fluctuated less on an island with few predators than on the surrounding mainland
4/19/2017

18. Other factors…
Period and intensity of a cycle also depend on the physical environment
Owl (predator) and vole (prey) population cycle dramatically over 4-year periods in northern Scandinavia – but fluctuate annually in the milder climate of southern Sweden
Why?
Prolonged heavy snow cover protects the voles from the owls thus creating a delay in the effects…
4/19/2017

19. 4/19/2017

20. Predator-Prey Cycles: A Simple Explanation
Population cycles of predators lag slightly behind population cycles of their prey:
predators eat prey and reduce their numbers
predators go hungry and their numbers drop
with fewer predators, the remaining prey survive better and prey numbers build
with increasing numbers of prey, the predator populations also build, completing the cycle
4/19/2017

21. Time Lags in Predator-Prey Systems
Delays in responses of births and deaths to an environmental change produce population cycles:
predator-prey interactions have time lags associated with the time required to produce offspring
4-year and 9- or 10-year cycles in Canadian tundra or forests suggest that time lags should be 1 or 2 years, respectively:
these could be typical lengths of time between birth and sexual maturity
the influence of conditions in one year might not be felt until young born in that year are old enough to reproduce
4/19/2017

22. Time Lags in Pathogen-Host Systems
Immune responses can create cycles of infection in certain diseases:
measles produced epidemics with a 2-year cycle in pre-vaccine human populations:
two years were required for a sufficiently large population of newly susceptible infants to accumulate
4/19/2017

23. 4/19/2017

24. Time Lags in Pathogen-Host Systems
other pathogens cycle because they kill sufficient hosts to reduce host density below the level where the pathogens can spread in the population:
such cycling is evident in polyhedrosis virus in tent caterpillars
In many regions, tent caterpillar infestations last about 2 years before the virus brings its host population under control
In other regions, infestations may last up to 9 years
Forest fragmentation – which creates abundant forest edge – tends to prolong outbreaks of the tent caterpillar
Why?
Increased forest edge exposes caterpillars to more intense sunlight  inactivates the virus  thus, habitat manipulation here has secondary effects
4/19/2017

25. Habitat structure can affect population cycles
4/19/2017

26. 4/19/2017

27. 4/19/2017

28. 4/19/2017

29. Laboratory Investigations of Predators and Prey
G.F. Gause conducted simple test-tube experiments with Paramecium (prey) and Didinium (predator):
in plain test tubes containing nutritive medium, the predator devoured all prey, then went extinct itself
in tubes with a glass wool refuge, some prey escaped predation, and the prey population reexpanded after the predator went extinct
Gause could maintain predator-prey cycles in such tubes by periodically adding more predators
4/19/2017

30. Predator-prey interactions can be modeled by simple equations.
Lotka and Volterra independently developed models of predator-prey interactions in the 1920s:
dR/dt = rR - cRP
describes the rate of increase of the prey population, where:
R is the number of prey
P is the number of predators
r is the prey’s per capita exponential growth rate
c is a constant expressing efficiency of predation
4/19/2017

31. Lotka-Volterra Predator-Prey Equations
A second equation:
dP/dt = acRP - dP
describes the rate of increase of the predator population, where:
P is the number of predators
R is the number of prey
a is the efficiency of conversion of food to growth
c is a constant expressing efficiency of predation
d is a constant related to the death rate of predators
4/19/2017

32. Predictions of Lotka-Volterra Models
Predators and prey both have equilibrium conditions (equilibrium isoclines or zero growth isoclines):
P = r/c for the predator
R = d/ac for the prey
when these values are graphed, there is a single joint equilibrium point where population sizes of predator and prey are stable:
when populations stray from joint equilibrium, they cycle with period T = 2 / rd
4/19/2017

33. Cycling in Lotka-Volterra Equations
A graph with axes representing sizes of the predator and prey populations illustrates the cyclic predictions of Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equations:
a population trajectory describes the joint cyclic changes of P and R counterclockwise through the P versus R graph
4/19/2017

34. 4/19/2017

35. Factors Changing Equilibrium Isoclines
The prey isocline increases (r/c) if:
Reproductive rate of the prey (r) increases or capture efficiency of predators (c) decreases, or both:
the prey population would be able to support the burden of a larger predator population
The predator isocline (d/ac) increases if:
Death rate (d) increases and either reproductive efficiency of predators (a) or c decreases:
more prey would be required to support the predator population
4/19/2017

36. Other Lotka-Volterra Predictions
Increasing the predation efficiency (c) alone in the model reduces isoclines for predators and prey:
fewer prey would be needed to sustain a given capture rate
the prey population would be less able to support the more efficient predator
Increasing the birth rate of the prey (r) should lead to an increase in the population of predators but not the prey themselves.
4/19/2017

37. An increase in the birth rate of prey increases the predator population but not the prey population.
4/19/2017

38. 4/19/2017

39. Modification of Lotka-Volterra Models for Predators and Prey
There are various concerns with the Lotka-Volterra equations:
the lack of any forces tending to restore the populations to the joint equilibrium:
this condition is referred to as a neutral equilibrium
the lack of any satiation of predators:
each predator consumes a constant proportion of the prey population regardless of its density
4/19/2017

40. The Functional Response
A more realistic description of predator behavior incorporates alternative functional responses, proposed by C.S. Holling:
type I response: rate of consumption per predator is proportional to prey density (no satiation)
type II response: number of prey consumed per predator increases rapidly, then plateaus with increasing prey density
type III response: like type II, except predator response to prey is depressed at low prey density
4/19/2017

41. 4/19/2017

42. Welcome back Yes, exam is on the 23rd of December Oral presentations
Chapters 7, 8, 10, 14, 15 + cc
active/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-climate- change-carbon-emissions
Exam is in this class room. Promptly at 2 pm
Oral presentations
I may miss you Friday  (not 100% sure)
Remaining chapters
Chapters 22, 23, 26, 27 plus ?
4/19/2017

43. 4/19/2017

44. Student Exam questions
submit ?s to me via that could be used on the exam.  Submit ?s by 21-December (Mon)
The ?s should have the same format as those on the practice quizzes (i.e., multiple choice with 4 options).  You may also essay questions.
Put "BIOL 207: questions for exam" in the subject line.  For each ? of yours that is used on the exam, you will receive 1 EC pt.  I will limit you to 2 EC ? per exam, but it is in your best interest to submit several (8-10) ?s. 
4/19/2017

45. Lotka-Volterra model (remember?)
[the rate of change in the prey population ] = [the intrinsic growth rate of the prey population] – [the removal of prey individuals by predators]
Equilibrium isocline
4/19/2017

48. 4/19/2017

51. Pathogen-host dynamics
4/19/2017

52. Individuals in a host populations are initially susceptible to a new pathogen  become infected (and can infect others)  recover and become resistant

54. Predator satiation and lotka-volterra model
4/19/2017

55. The Functional Response
A more realistic description of predator behavior incorporates alternative functional responses, proposed by C.S. Holling:
type I response: rate of consumption per predator is proportional to prey density (no satiation)
type II response: number of prey consumed per predator increases rapidly, then plateaus with increasing prey density
type III response: like type II, except predator response to prey is depressed at low prey density
4/19/2017

56. 4/19/2017

57. The Holling Type III Response
What would cause the type III functional response?
heterogeneous habitat, which provides a limited number of safe hiding places for prey
lack of reinforcement of learned searching behavior due to a low rate of prey encounter
switching by predator to alternative food sources when prey density is low
4/19/2017

58. switching
When the predatory water bug (N. glauca) was presented with 2 types of prey in the lab, it consumed the more abundant prey species, whichever it was, in a proportion greater than its percentage of occurrence.
The switching depended on a variation in the success of attacks on prey as a function of their relative density
4/19/2017

59. 4/19/2017

60. Variation in prey availability does not always lead to switching Some predators will switch prey only when the availability of their principal prey is extremely low
4/19/2017

61. % of snowshoe hares, squirrels and small mammals in diets of lynx and coyote
4/19/2017

62. Predator population have a numerical response to changes in prey density. What does that mean?
4/19/2017

63. The Numerical Response
Individual predators can increase their consumption of prey only to the point of satiation
If individual predators exhibit satiation (type II or III functional responses), continued predator response to prey must come from:
increase in predator population through local population growth or immigration from elsewhere
this increase is referred to as a numerical response
4/19/2017

64. 4/19/2017

65. Several factors reduce predator-prey oscillations.
All of the following tend to stabilize predator and prey numbers (in the sense of maintaining nonvarying equilibrium population sizes):
predator inefficiency
density-dependent limitation of either predator or prey by external factors
alternative food sources for the predator
refuges from predation at low prey densities
reduced time delays in predator responses to changes in prey abundance
4/19/2017

66. Destabilizing Influences
The presence of predator-prey cycles indicates destabilizing influences:
such influences are typically time delays in predator-prey interactions:
developmental period
time required for numerical responses by predators
time course for immune responses in animals and induced defenses in plants
when destabilizing influences outweigh stabilizing ones, population cycles may arise
4/19/2017

67. Predator-prey systems can have more than one stable state.
Prey are limited both by their food supply and the effects of predators:
some populations may have two or more stable equilibrium points, or multiple stable states:
such a situation arises when:
prey exhibits a typical pattern of density-dependence (reduced growth as carrying capacity is reached)
predator exhibits a type III functional response
4/19/2017

68. 4/19/2017

69. Three Equilibria
The model of predator and prey responses to prey density results in three stable or equilibrium states:
a stable point A (low prey density) where:
any increase in prey population is more than offset by increasingly efficient prey capture by predator
an unstable point B (intermediate prey density) where:
control of prey shifts from predation to resource limitation
a stable point C where:
prey escapes control by predator and is regulated near its carrying capacity by resource scarcity
4/19/2017

70. Multiple states in predator-prey system (type III functional response)
4/19/2017

71. Implications of Multiple Stable States
Predators may control prey at a low level (point A in model), but can lose the potential to regulate prey at this level if prey density increases above point B in the model:
a predator controlling an agricultural pest can lose control of that pest if the predator is suppressed by another factors for a time:
once the pest population exceeds point B, it will increase to a high level at point C, regardless of predator activity
at this point, pest population will remain high until some other factor reduces the pest population below point B in the model
4/19/2017

72. Intensity of predation relative to prey recruitment determines the number of stable predator-prey equilibrium points
C = equilibrium point;
K = carrying capacity
4/19/2017

73. Effects of Different Levels of Predation
Inefficient predators cannot maintain prey at low levels (prey primarily limited by resources).
Increased predator efficiency adds a second stable point at low prey density.
Further increases in predator functional and numerical responses may eliminate a stable point at high prey density
Intense predation at all prey levels can drive the prey to extinction
4/19/2017

74. When can predators drive prey to extinction?
It is clearly possible for predators to drive their prey to extinction when:
predators and prey are maintained in simple laboratory systems
predators are maintained at high density by availability of alternative, less preferred prey:
biological control may be enhanced by providing alternative prey to parasites and predators
4/19/2017

75. What equilibria are likely?
Models of predator and prey suggest that:
prey are more likely to be held at relatively low or relatively high equilibria (or perhaps both)
equilibria at intermediate prey densities are highly unlikely
4/19/2017

76. YES! PAGE 324! MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD
4/19/2017