Clutch‐Size Behavior and Coexistence in Ephemeralpatch Competition Models

Systems of patchy, ephemeral resources often support surprisingly diverse assemblages of consumer insects. Aggregation of consumer individuals over the landscape of patches has been suggested as one mechanism that can stabilize competition among consumer species. One mechanism for larval aggregation is the laying of eggs in clutches by females traveling among patches to distribute their total fecundity. We use simulation models to explore the consequences, for coexistence of competitors, of larval aggregation that arises from clutch laying. Contrary to some previous treatments, we find that clutch laying can be strongly stabilizing and under certain conditions can be sufficient to allow competitors to coexist stably. We extend these models by considering clutch size as a variable that responds to the abundance of resource patches. Such a relationship might be expected because females should lay their eggs in fewer but larger clutches when the cost of travel among patches is high (because patches are rare). When females adjust clutch size in response to resource abundance, coexistence can be easiest when resource patches are scarce and most difficult when resources are abundant.

[1]  S. Heard.  Resource patch density and larval aggregation in mushroom-breeding flies , 1998 .

[2]  D. Jablonski,et al.  Paleobiology, community ecology, and scales of ecological pattern. , 1996, Ecology.

[3]  J. G. Sevenster.  Aggregation and coexistence. I. Theory and analysis , 1996 .

[4]  Jg Sevenster.  Aggregation and coexistence. II. A neotropical Drosophila community , 1996 .

[5]  Richard E. Michod,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation in Spatially Heterogeneous Populations , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[6]  V. Jansen.  Regulation of predator-prey systems through spatial interactions:a possible solution to the paradox of enrichment. , 1995 .

[7]  B. Blossey.  Coexistence of Two Leaf-Beetles in the Same Fundamental Niche. Distribution, Adult Phenology and Oviposition , 1995 .

[8]  I. Hanski,et al.  Complex competitive interactions in four species of Lucilia blowflies , 1995 .

[9]  B. Shorrocks,et al.  Explaining local species diversity , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  S. Heard.  Short-term dynamics of processing chain systems , 1995 .

[11]  I. Hanski,et al.  Population aggregation facilitates coexistence of many competing carrion fly species , 1995 .

[12]  M. Nowak,et al.  Habitat destruction and the extinction debt , 1994, Nature.

[13]  S. Heard.  PITCHER-PLANT MIDGES AND MOSQUITOES: A PROCESSING CHAIN COMMENSALISM' , 1994 .

[14]  A. Hastings,et al.  Persistence of Transients in Spatially Structured Ecological Models , 1994, Science.

[15]  A. Dixon,et al.  Why do ladybirds lay eggs in clusters , 1993 .

[16]  Alan Hastings,et al.  Complex interactions between dispersal and dynamics: Lessons from coupled logistic equations , 1993 .

[17]  M. Kretzschmar,et al.  Aggregated distributions in models for patchy populations. , 1993, Theoretical population biology.

[18]  W. Morris,et al.  Causes and Consequences of Spatial Aggregation in the Phytophagous Beetle Altica tombacina , 1992 .

[19]  Paul C. Marino,et al.  Competition between mosses (Splachnaceae) in patchy habitats , 1991 .

[20]  A. C. James,et al.  AGGREGATION AND THE COEXISTENCE OF MYCOPHAGOUS DROSOPHILA , 1991 .

[21]  B. Shorrocks.  Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource: a cage experiment , 1991 .

[22]  N. Cappuccino,et al.  Two forms of egg defence in a chrysomelid beetle: egg clumping and excrement cover , 1991 .

[23]  A. Ives.  Aggregation and Coexistence in a Carrion Fly Community , 1991 .

[24]  B. Shorrocks,et al.  Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource testing the assumptions ii. association , 1990 .

[25]  A. Ives.  Covariance, coexistence and the population dynamics of two competitors using a patchy resource , 1988 .

[26]  B. Shorrocks,et al.  Aggregation Does Prevent Competitive Exclusion: A Response to Green , 1988, American Naturalist.

[27]  R. Green.  Reply to Shorrocks and Rosewell , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[28]  T. McGuire,et al.  A Criticism of the Aggregation Model of Coexistence: Non-Independent Distribution of Dipteran Species on Ephemeral Resources , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[29]  P. Stiling.  The Frequency of Density Dependence in Insect Host‐Parasitoid Systems , 1987 .

[30]  P. Wellings.  Spatial distribution and interspecific competition , 1987 .

[31]  M. Mangel.  Opposition site selection and clutch size in insects , 1987 .

[32]  R. Green.  Does Aggregation Prevent Competitive Exclusion? A Response to Atkinson and Shorrocks , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[33]  K. Kneidel.  Patchiness, aggregation, and the coexistence of competitors for ephemeral resources , 1985 .

[34]  R. May,et al.  Competition within and between species in a patchy environment: Relations between microscopic and macroscopic models , 1985 .

[35]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Theory of oviposition strategy of parasitoids. I. Effect of mortality and limited egg number. , 1984, Theoretical population biology.

[36]  B. Shorrocks,et al.  Aggregation of Larval Diptera Over Discrete and Ephemeral Breeding Sites: The Implications for Coexistence , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[37]  G. Parker,et al.  Models of clutch size in insect oviposition , 1984 .

[38]  D. Grimaldi,et al.  Competition in Natural Populations of Mycophagous Drosophila , 1984 .

[39]  J. Waage,et al.  The reproductive strategy of a parasitic wasp. I. Optimal progeny and sex allocations in Trichogramma evanescens , 1984 .

[40]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence , 1984 .

[41]  Joseph H. Connell,et al.  On the Prevalence and Relative Importance of Interspecific Competition: Evidence from Field Experiments , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[42]  Thomas W. Schoener,et al.  Field Experiments on Interspecific Competition , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[43]  B. Roitberg,et al.  Host deprivation influence on response of Rhagoletis pomonella to its oviposition deterring pheromone , 1983 .

[44]  William Gurney,et al.  Modelling fluctuating populations , 1982 .

[45]  T. Schoener.  The Controversy over Interspecific Competition , 1982 .

[46]  I. Hanski,et al.  The structure of carrion fly communities: the size and the type of carrion , 1982 .

[47]  A. Forsyth,et al.  Composition, structure, and competitive behaviour in a guild of Ecuadorian rain forest dung beetles (Coleoptera; Scarabaeidae) , 1982 .

[48]  J. Grimes.  The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation , 1982 .

[49]  B. Roitberg,et al.  Foraging Behaviour of Rhagoletis pomonella, a Parasite of Hawthorn (Crataegus viridis), in Nature , 1982 .

[50]  I. Hanski.  Coexistence of competitors in patchy environment with and without predation , 1981 .

[51]  B. Shorrocks,et al.  Competition on a Divided and Ephemeral Resource: A Simulation Model , 1981 .

[52]  David C. Smith.  COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS OF THE STRIPED PLATEAU LIZARD (SCELOPORUS VIRGATUS) AND THE TREE LIZARD (UROSAURUS ORNATUS) , 1981 .

[53]  J. Wiens,et al.  Morphological Size Ratios and Competition in Ecological Communities , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[54]  A. Dunham.  AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION BETWEEN THE IGUANID LIZARDS SCELOPORUS MERRIAMI AND UROSAURUS ORNATUS , 1980 .

[55]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  The Assembly of Species Communities: Chance or Competition? , 1979 .

[56]  P. Charlesworth,et al.  COMPETITION ON A DIVIDED AND EPHEMERAL RESOURCE , 1979 .

[57]  R. Beaver.  NON-EQUILIBRIUM 'ISLAND' COMMUNITIES. A GUILD OF TROPICAL BARK BEETLES , 1979 .

[58]  W. Atkinson.  A FIELD INVESTIGATION OF LARVAL COMPETITION IN DOMESTIC DROSOPHILA , 1979 .

[59]  M. Huston.  A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[60]  R. Beaver.  NON-EQUILIBRIUM 'ISLAND' COMMUNITIES: DIPTERA BREEDING IN DEAD SNAILS , 1977 .

[61]  M. Hassell,et al.  Discrete time models for two-species competition. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[62]  L. Gilbert,et al.  COEVOLUTION OF PLANTS AND HERBIVORES: PASSION FLOWER BUTTERFLIES , 1975, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[63]  S. Levin.  Dispersion and Population Interactions , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[64]  M. Rosenzweig.  Paradox of Enrichment: Destabilization of Exploitation Ecosystems in Ecological Time , 1971, Science.

[65]  R. Lord,et al.  The Pattern of Animal Communities , 1967 .

[66]  E. del Solar,et al.  Choice of Oviposition in Drosophila melanogaster , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[67]  D. J. Jackson.  Observations on the biology of Caraphractus cinctus Walker (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), a parasitoid of the eggs of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). 2. Immature stages and seasonal history with a review of Mymarid larvae , 1961, Parasitology.

[68]  J. R. Ott,et al.  Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects : competition reexamined and resurrected , 1995 .

[69]  J. Büning.  The Insect Ovary , 1994, Springer Netherlands.

[70]  J. Buning.  The insect ovary : ultrastructure, previtellogenic growth and evolution , 1994 .

[71]  J. V. Alphen,et al.  Coexistence in stochastic environments through a life history trade off in Drosophila , 1993 .

[72]  R. Mitchell.  Behavioral Ecology of Callosobruchus Maculatus , 1990 .

[73]  I. Swingland,et al.  Dung and carrion insects. , 1990 .

[74]  I. Hanski,et al.  Fungivorous Pegomya flies: spatial and temporal variation in a guild of competitors , 1989 .

[75]  A. Ives.  Aggregation and the coexistence of competitors , 1988 .

[76]  I. Hanski.  Colonization of ephemeral habitats , 1987 .

[77]  S. Courtney.  The Ecology of Pierid Butterflies: Dynamics and Interactions , 1986 .

[78]  W. Atkinson.  Gregarious Oviposition in Drosophila Melanogaster Is Explained by Surface Texture. , 1983 .