The effect of the Holling type II functional response on apparent competition.

This article analyzes the classical 2-resource-1-consumer apparent competition community module with the Holling type II functional response. Two types of resource regulation (top-down vs. combined top-down and bottom-up) and two types of consumer behaviors (inflexible consumers with fixed preferences for resources vs. adaptive consumers) are considered. When resources grow exponentially and consumers are inflexible foragers, one resource is always outcompeted due to strong apparent competition. Density dependent resource growth relaxes apparent competition so that resources can coexist. As multiple attractors (either equilibria or limit cycles) coexist, population dynamics and community composition depend on initial population densities. Population dynamics change dramatically when consumers forage adaptively. In this case, the results both for top-down, and combined top-down and bottom-up regulation are similar and they show that species persistence occurs for a much larger set of parameter values when compared with inflexible consumers. Moreover, population dynamics will be chaotic when resource carrying capacities are high enough. This shows that adaptive consumer switching can destabilize population dynamics.

[1]  A Hastings,et al.  Chaos in one-predator, two-prey models: general results from bifurcation theory. , 1994, Mathematical biosciences.

[2]  Michael E. Gilpin,et al.  Spiral Chaos in a Predator-Prey Model , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[3]  P. Abrams,et al.  The prevalence of asymmetrical indirect effects in two-host-one-parasitoid systems. , 2004, Theoretical population biology.

[4]  R. Vance,et al.  Predation and Resource Partitioning in One Predator -- Two Prey Model Communities , 1978, The American Naturalist.

[5]  D. A. Andow,et al.  Indirect effects between shared prey: Predictions for , 2004, BioControl.

[6]  Vlastimil Krivan,et al.  Adaptive omnivory and species coexistence in tri-trophic food webs. , 2005, Theoretical population biology.

[7]  R. McGehee,et al.  Coexistence of species competing for shared resources. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[8]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[9]  O. Schmitz,et al.  Adaptive foraging and flexible food web topology , 2003 .

[10]  M. Kretzschmar,et al.  A Predator-Prey Model for Zooplankton Grazing on Competing Algal Populations , 1993 .

[11]  H. Charles J. Godfray,et al.  Experimental evidence for apparent competition in a tropical forest food web , 2004, Nature.

[12]  V. Křivan,et al.  Optimal Foraging and Predator-Prey Dynamics , 1996, Theoretical population biology.

[13]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  Optimal Foraging and the Form of the Predator Isocline , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[14]  S. Louda,et al.  EXOTIC WEED INVASION INCREASES THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF NATIVE PLANTS TO ATTACK BY A BIOCONTROL HERBIVORE , 2004 .

[15]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  On the evolutionary stability of sink populations , 1997, Evolutionary Ecology.

[16]  Paul Waltman,et al.  Persistence in dynamical systems , 1986 .

[17]  Robert D Holt,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity, Indirect Interactions, and the Coexistence of Prey Species , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[18]  William E. Snyder,et al.  Alternative prey disrupt biocontrol by a guild of generalist predators , 2005 .

[19]  Vlastimil Krivan,et al.  Dynamic Ideal Free Distribution: Effects of Optimal Patch Choice on Predator-Prey Dynamics , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[20]  V. Brown,et al.  Multitrophic Interactions in Terrestrial Systems , 1997 .

[21]  John H. Lawton,et al.  The Ecological Consequences of Shared Natural Enemies , 1994 .

[22]  R. Holt,et al.  APPARENT COMPETITION OR APPARENT MUTUALISM? SHARED PREDATION WHEN POPULATIONS CYCLE , 1998 .

[23]  Bard Ermentrout,et al.  Simulating, analyzing, and animating dynamical systems - a guide to XPPAUT for researchers and students , 2002, Software, environments, tools.

[24]  Jan Eisner,et al.  Optimal foraging and predator-prey dynamics III. , 1996, Theoretical population biology.

[25]  V. Křivan,et al.  Optimal foraging and predator-prey dynamics, II. , 1999, Theoretical population biology.

[26]  D. Boukal,et al.  Lyapunov functions for Lotka–Volterra predator–prey models with optimal foraging behavior , 1999 .

[27]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[28]  Peter A. Abrams,et al.  IS PREDATOR‐MEDIATED COEXISTENCE POSSIBLE INUNSTABLE SYSTEMS? , 1999 .

[29]  R. Holt,et al.  The impact of consumer-resource cycles on the coexistence of competing consumers. , 2002, Theoretical population biology.

[30]  R. Holt Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. , 1977, Theoretical population biology.

[31]  R. Holt,et al.  Apparent Competition and Enemy-Free Space in Insect Host-Parasitoid Communities , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[32]  G. Tullock,et al.  Competitive Exclusion. , 1960, Science.

[33]  W. E. Snyder,et al.  Predation of green peach aphids by generalist predators in the presence of alternative, Colorado potato beetle egg prey , 2004 .