Coexistence and displacement in consumer-resource systems with local and shared resources
Competition for local and shared resources is widespread. For example, colonial waterbirds consume local prey in the immediate vicinity of their colony, as well as shared prey across multiple colonies. However, there is little understanding of conditions facilitating coexistence vs. displacement in such systems. Extending traditional models based on type I and type II functional responses, we simulate consumer-resource systems in which resources are “substitutable,” “essential,” or “complementary.” It is shown that when resources are complementary or essential, a small increase in carrying capacity or decrease in handling time of a local resource may displace a spatially separate consumer species, even when the effect on shared resources is small. This work underscores the importance of determining both the nature of resource competition (substitutable, essential, or complementary) and appropriate scale-dependencies when studying metacommunities. We discuss model applicability to complex systems, e.g., urban wildlife that consume natural and anthropogenic resources which may displace rural competitors by depleting shared prey.
KeywordsHolling’s disc Functional response Consumer-resource model Coexistence Displacement Zero net growth isocline
The authors thank Rosalyn Rael, Paul Orlando, and two anonymous reviewers for providing very helpful comments and insights that improved the manuscript.
- Brown JS (2000) Foraging ecology of animals. In: Hutchings MJ, John LA, Stewart AJA (eds) The ecological consequences of environmental heterogeneity: the 40th Symposium of the British Ecological Society held at University of Sussex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 184Google Scholar
- Cobb CW, Douglas PH (1928) A theory of production. Am Econ Rev 18:139–165Google Scholar
- Cooper SD, Diehl S, Kratz K, Sarnelle O (1998) Implications of scale for patterns and processes in stream ecology. Aust J Ecol 23:27–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1998.tb00703.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Denny MW, Gaines SD (2007) Encyclopedia of tidepools and rocky shores. University of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
- Franco AC, Rossatto DR, de Ramos Silva LC, da Ferreira CS (2014) Cerrado vegetation and global change: the role of functional types, resource availability and disturbance in regulating plant community responses to rising CO2 levels and climate warming. Theor Exp Plant Physiol 26:19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-014-0002-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Henny CJ (1972) An analysis of the population dynamics of selected avian species—with special references to changes during the modern pesticide era. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, LaurelGoogle Scholar
- Holling CS (1959) Some Characteristics of Simple Types of Predation and Parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent91385-7
- Monod J (1949) The growth of bacterial cultures. Annu Rev Microbiol 3:371–394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.03.100149.002103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Soetaert K, Petzoldt T, Setzer RW (2010) Solving differential equations in R: package deSolve. Journal of Statistical Software 33: 1-25Google Scholar
- Trouwborst A (2012) Transboundary wildlife conservation in a changing climate: adaptation of the Bonn convention and its daughter instruments to climate change. Social Science Research Network, RochesterGoogle Scholar
- Vickery WL, Brown JS (2009) Spite, egotism, population stability, and resource conservation. Evolutionary Ecology Research 11:253–263.Google Scholar