A consumer-resource approach to the density-dependent population dynamics of mutualism

Ecology

Volumn 91, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1286-1295

  Holland, J Nathaniel ^a   Deangelis, Donald L ^b  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Biology   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer resource interaction; Context dependent; Density dependent; Equilibrium; Functional response; Indirect interaction; Resource supply; Stability; Transient behavior

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; CONSUMER-RESOURCE INTERACTION; DENSITY DEPENDENCE; EXTINCTION RISK; FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE; MUTUALISM; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SYMBIOSIS;

MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SYMBIOSIS;

ANTHOZOA;

EID: 77951782961     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/09-1163.1     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abrams, P. A., and L. R. Ginzburg. 2000. The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent, or neither. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:337-341.
2. Agrawal, A. A., and J. A. Fordyce. 2000. Induced indirect defence in a lycaenid-ant association: The regulation of a resource in a mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267:1857-1861.
3. Bascompte, J., P. Jordano, and J. M. Olesen. 2006. Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance. Science 312:431-433.
4. Chamberlain, S. A., and J. N. Holland. 2008. Densitymediated, context-dependent consumer-resource interactions between ants and extrafloral nectar plants. Ecology 89:1364-1374.
5. Edelstein-Keshet, L. 2005. Mathematical models in biology. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA [Reprint of Random House edition].
6. Ferrière, R., M. Gauduchon, and J. L. Bronstein. 2007. Evolution and persistence of obligate mutualists and exploiters: competition for partners and evolutionary immunization. Ecology Letters 10:115-126.
7. Gause, G. F., and A. A. Witt. 1935. Behavior of mixed populations and the problem of natural selection. American Naturalist 69:596-609.
8. Holland, J. N. 2002. Benefits and costs of mutualism: Demographic consequences in a pollinating seed-consumer interaction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:1405-1412.
9. Holland, J. N., S. A. Chamberlain, and K. Horn. 2009. Optimal defence theory predicts investment in extrafloral nectar resources in an ant-plant mutualism. Journal of Ecology 97:89-96.
10. Holland, J. N., and D. L. DeAngelis. 2002. Ecological, and evolutionary conditions for fruit abortion to regulate pollinating seed-eaters and increase plant reproduction. Theoretical Population Biology 61:251-263.
11. Holland, J. N., and D. L. DeAngelis. 2006. Interspecific population regulation and the stability of mutualism.: fruit abortion and density-dependent mortality of pollinating seed-eating insects. Oikos 113:563-571.
12. Holland, J. N., D. L. DeAngelis, and J. L. Bronstein. 2002. Population dynamics and mutualism: functional responses of benefits and costs. American Naturalist 159:231-244.
13. Holland, J. N., J. H. Ness, A. L. Boyle, and J. L. Bronstein. 2005. Mutualisms as consumer-resource interactions. Pages 17-33 in P. Barbosa and I. Castellanos, editors. Ecology of predator-prey interactions. Oxford. University Press, New York, New York, USA.
14. Holland, J. N., T. Okuyama, and D. L. DeAngelis. 2006. Comment on "Asymmetric revolutionary Networks Facilitate Biodiversity Maintenance." Science 313:1887.
15. Holling, C. S. 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal prédation of the European pine sawfly. Canadian Entomologist 91:293-320.
16. Juliano, S. A. 2001. Nonlinear curve fitting: predation and functional response curves. Pages 178-196 in S. M. Scheiner and J. Gurevitch, editors. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
17. Kot, M. 2001. Elements of mathematical ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA.
18. Leon, J. A., and D. B. Tumpson. 1975. Competition between two species for two complementary or substitutable resources. Journal of Theoretical Biology 50:185-201.
19. Levins, R. 1966. The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist 54:421-431.
20. MacArthur, R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New York, New York, USA.
21. MacArthur, R. H., and R. Levins. 1967. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist 101:377-385.
22. Math Works. 2007. MATLAB R2007b. MathWorks, Natick, Massachusetts, USA.
23. May, R. M. 1976. Models of two interacting populations. Pages 78-104 in R. M. May, editor. Theoretical ecology: principles and application. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
24. McGiIl, B. 2005. A. mechanistic model of a mutualism and its ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Ecological Modelling 187:413-425.
25. Murdoch, W. M., C. J. Briggs, and R. M. Nisbet. 2003. Consumer-resource dynamics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
26. Rosenzweig, M. L., and R. H. MacArthur. 1963. Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. American Naturalist 97:209-223.
27. Solomon, M. E. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 18:1-35.
28. Stanton, M. L. 2003. Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. American Naturalist 162:S10-S23.
29. Thompson, A. R., R. M. Nisbet, and R. J. Schmitt. 2006. Dynamics of mutualist populations that are demographically open. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:1239-1251.
30. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
31. Turchin, P. 2003. Complex population dynamics: a theoretical/ empirical synthesis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.