Enlarging Simple Ecological Models: Subspecies, Hidden Symmetries and Their Implications

  • Osmel MartinEmail author
  • Noel Perez-Diaz
  • Rolando Cárdenas
  • J. E. Horvath
Conference paper


Some basic principles to enlarge simple ecological models and the role of nonlinearities are discussed. The inclusion of internal groups and the new dynamic possibilities associated with this procedure are considered in the context of the logistic model. According to our results, processes like the success or extinction of a particular group without affecting the global population are not necessarily linked to the impact of environmental changes or the supremacy of a determined group or subspecies. In our case, the uniformity, the success or extinction of a particular group into a global population may be seen as the possibility to achieve or not a typical symmetry-breaking process. Such possibilities arise associated with the degree of nonlinearity contributions and the specificities of the interaction network in the model. Other elements linked with the ecological interaction, the role of symmetries and the phenomenological nature of ecological modelling are also discussed.


Ecological modelling Subspecies Symmetry Symmetry-breaking process 


  1. 1.
    Schmolke A et al (2010) Ecological models supporting environmental decision making: a strategy for the future. Trends Ecol Evol 25(8):479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grimm V et al (2014) Towards better modelling and decision support: documenting model development, testing, and analysis using TRACE. Ecol Model 280:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40(1):677–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2003) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12(5):361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kreuzer M, Tribsch A, Nyffeler R (2014) Ecological and genetic differentiation of two subspecies of Saussurea alpina in the Western Alps. Alp Bot 124(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gleiser M, Thorarinson J (2006) Prebiotic homochirality as a critical phenomenon. Orig Life Evol Biosph 36(5):501–505Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li R, Bowerman B (2010) Symmetry breaking in biology. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2(3):a003475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borile C et al (2012) Spontaneously broken neutral symmetry in an ecological system. Phys Rev Lett 109(3):038102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sayama H, Kaufman L, Bar-Yam Y (2000) Symmetry breaking and coarsening in spatially distributed evolutionary processes including sexual reproduction and disruptive selection. Phys Rev E 62(5):7065–7069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Price RIA et al (2016) Symmetry breaking in mass-recruiting ants: extent of foraging biases depends on resource quality. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70(11):1813–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Djouadi A (2008) The anatomy of electroweak symmetry breaking: Tome I: The Higgs boson in the Standard Model. Phys Rep 457(1–4):1–216Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabrielli E et al (2014) Towards completing the standard model: vacuum stability, electroweak symmetry breaking, and dark matter. Phys Rev D 89(1):015017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kratina P et al (2009) Functional responses modified by predator density. Oecologia 159(2):425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morozov AY (2010) Emergence of Holling type III zooplankton functional response: bringing together field evidence and mathematical modelling. J Theor Biol 265(1):45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millstein RL (2009) Populations as individuals. Biol Theory 4(3):267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patten MA (2015) Subspecies and the philosophy of science. Auk 132(2):481–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stein BA et al (2013) Preparing for and managing change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 11(9):502–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Longo G, Montévil M (2011) From physics to biology by extending criticality and symmetry breakings. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 106(2):340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goryachev AB, Leda M (2017) Many roads to symmetry breaking: molecular mechanisms and theoretical models of yeast cell polarity. Mol Biol Cell 28(3):370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Osmel Martin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Noel Perez-Diaz
    • 1
  • Rolando Cárdenas
    • 1
  • J. E. Horvath
    • 2
  1. 1.Central University Marta Abreu from Las VillasSanta ClaraCuba
  2. 2.Departamento de AstronomíaInstituto de Astronomía, Geofísica y Ciencias Atmosféricas (IAG), USPSao PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations