Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 66, Issue 3, pp 213–242 | Cite as

An Inverse Problem: Trappers Drove Hares to Eat Lynx

Regular Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The Canadian lynx and snowshoe hare pelt data by the Hudson Bay Company did not fit the classical predator–prey theory. Rather than following the peak density of the hare, that of the lynx leads it, creating the hares-eat-lynx (HEL) paradox. Although trappers were suspected to play a role, no mathematical model has ever demonstrated the HEL effect. Here we show that the long-held assumption that the pelt number is a proxy of the wild populations is false and that when the data are modeled by the harvest rates by the trappers, the problem is finally resolved: both the HEL paradox and the classical theory are unified in our mechanistic hare-lynx-competitor-trapper (HLCT) model where competitor stands for all predators of the hares other than the lynx. The result is obtained by systematically fitting the data to various models using Newton’s inverse problem method. Main findings of this study include: the prey-eats-predator paradox in kills by an intraguild top-predator can occur if the top-predator prefers the predator to the prey; the benchmark HLCT model is more sensitive to all lynx-trapper interactions than to the respective hare-trapper interactions; the Hudson Bay Company’s hare pelt number maybe under-reported; and, the most intriguing of all, the trappers did not interfere in each other’s trapping activities.

Keywords

Canadian lynx and snowshoe hare Predator–prey model Holling’s disc function Dimensional analysis Newton’s line search method 

References

  1. Bittner S, Rongstad O (1982) Snowshoe hare and allies. In: Chapman J, Feldhamer C (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economies. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 146–163Google Scholar
  2. Blasius B, Huppert A, Stone L (1999) Complex dynamics and phase synchronization in spatially extended ecological systems. Nature 399:354–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Britton NF (2003) Essential mathematical biology. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulmer MG (1974) A statistical analysis of the 10-year cycle in Canada. J Anim Ecol 43:701–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattadori IM, Haydon DT, Thirgood SJ, Hudson PJ (2002) Are indirect measures of abundance a useful index of population density? The case of red grouse harvesting records. Oikos 100:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deng B (2008) The Time Invariance Principle, the absence of ecological chaos, and a fundamental pitfall of discrete modeling. Ecol Model 215:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deng B (2009) Can discrete modelers work without the TIP? Ecol Model 220:2600–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deng B (2010) From energy gradient and natural selection to biodiversity and stability of ecosystems. Open Ecol J 3:95–110.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874213001003010095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elton C, Nicholson M (1942) The ten-year cycle in numbers of the lynx in Canada. J Anim Ecol 11:215–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finerty JP (1979) Cycles in Canadian lynx. Am Nat 114:453–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gamarra JGP, Solé RV (2000) Bifurcations and chaos in ecology: lynx returns revisited. Ecol Lett 3:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbard HJ (1967) Phyllis King, History of Trapline Management in Ontario. In: Ontario fish and wildlife review spring-summer 1967, Ontario. Dept. of Lands and Forests. Fish and Wildlife Branch; Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  13. Gilpin ME (1973) Do hares eat lynx? Am Nat 107:727–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall CAS (1988) An assessment of several of the historically most influential theoretical-models used in ecology and of the data provided in their support. Ecol Model 43:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanski I, Henttonen H, Korpimäki E, Oksanen L, Turchin P (2001) Small-rodent dynamics and predation. Ecology 82:1505–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hewitt CG (1921) The conservation of the wild life of Canada. Charles Scribner′s Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Holling CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huffaker CB (1958) Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator–prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27:795–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutchinson GE (1975) Variations on a theme by Robert MacArthur. In: Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and the evolution of communities. Belknap, Cambridge, pp 492–521Google Scholar
  20. Keith LB (1963) Wildlife’s ten-year cycle. Univ. Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  21. King AA, Schaffer WM (2001) The geometry of a population cycle: a mechanistic model of snowshoe hare demography. Ecology 82:814–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krebs CJ, Boutin S, Boonstra R, Sinclair ARE, Smith NNM, Dale MRT, Martin K, Turkington R (1995) Impact of food and predation on the showshoe hare cycle. Science 269:112–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krebs CJ, Boonstra R, Boutin S, Sinclair ARE (2001) What drives the 10-year cycle of snowshoe hares? BioScience 51:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawton JH, Beddington JR, Bonser R (1974) Switching in invertebrate predators. In: Usher MB, Williamson MH (eds) Ecological stability. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leigh ER (1968) The ecological role of Volterra’s equations. In: Gerstenhaber M (ed) Some mathematical problems in biology. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp 1–61Google Scholar
  26. Logan D (1996) Applied mathematics, 2nd edn. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Lotka AJ (1925) Elements of physical biology. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  28. MacLulich DA (1937) Fluctuation in the number of the varying hare. Univ. of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  29. May RM (1973) Stability and complexity in model ecosystem. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Murdoch WW (1973) The functional response of predators. J Appl Ecol 10:335–342Google Scholar
  31. O’Donoghue M, Boutin S, Krebs CJ, Zuleta G, Murray DL, Hofer EJ (1998) Functional responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecology 79:1193–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Odum EP, Barrett GW (1971) Fundamentals of ecology, vol 3. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  33. Rohner C (1996) The numerical response of great horned owls to the snowshoe hare cycle: consequences of non-territorial ‘floaters’ on demography. J Anim Ecol 65:359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenzweig ML, MacArthur RH (1963) Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator–prey interactions. Am Nat 97:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rowan W, Keith LB (1956) Reproductive potential and sex ratios of snowshoe hares in northern Alberta. Can J Zool 34:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Royama T (1992) Analytical population dynamics. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruszczynski AP (2006) Nonlinear optimization. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Schaffer WM (1984) Stretching and folding in lynx fur returns—evidence for a strange attractor. Am Nat 124:798–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stenseth NC, Falck W, Bjørnstad ON, Krebs CJ (1997) Population regulation in snowshoe hare and Canadian lynx: asymmetric food web configurations between hare and lynx. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:5147–5152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stenseth NC, Falck W, Chan K-S, Bjørnstad ON, O’Donoghue M, Tong H, Boonstra R, Boutin S, Krebs CJ, Yoccoz NG (1998) From patterns to processes: Phase and density dependencies in the Canadian lynx cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:15430–15435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stenseth NC, Chan K-S, Framstad E, Tong H (1998) Phase- and density-dependent population dynamics in norwegian lemmings: interaction between deterministic and stochastic processes. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1957–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stone L, He D (2007) Chaotic oscillations and cycles in multi-trophic ecological systems. J Theor Biol 248:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson PA (1967) Fish and game law enforcement in Ontario. In: Ontario fish and wildlife review spring-summer 1967, Ontario. Dept. of Lands and Forests. Fish and Wildlife Branch; Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, pp 35–40Google Scholar
  44. Vik JO, Brinch CN, Boutin S, Stenseth N (2008) Interlinking hare and lynx dynamics using a century’s worth of annual data. Popul Ecol 50:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Volterra V (1926) Fluactuations in the abundance of species, considered mathematically. Nature 118:558–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weinstein MS (1977) Hares, lynx, and trappers. Am Nat 111:806–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winterhalder BP (1980) Canadian fur bearer cycles and Cree-Ojibwa hunting and trapping practices. Am Nat 115:870–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang ZB, Tao Y, Li ZQ (2007) Factors affecting hare-lynx dynamics in the classic time series of the Hudson Bay Company, Canada. Clim Res 34:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics and Science CollegeShanghai Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations