Coevolution of Patch Selection Strategies of Predator and Prey and the Consequences for Ecological Stability

In a seminal publication Hassell and May demonstrated that sufficiently uneven spatial distributions can stabilize predator-prey systems. In this article we investigate whether such spatial distributions (of either predators or prey) can be caused by behavior that is favored by natural selection. If selection operates on predators only, evolutionarily stable patch selection strategies (ESSs) will lead to predator aggregation, provided the prey are unevenly distributed. However, to render the ecological equilibrium stable, prey aggregation needs to be very strong. If selection operates at both trophic levels, then simultaneous ESSs will exist for predator and prey. Where patches are of equal quality (as is implicitly assumed in Hassell and May's model), the distributions of both predators and prey will be homogeneous, and ecological stability will vanish. Where patches differ, for example, in prey reproduction or survival, aggregated distributions of prey and predators will result. A stable ecological equilibrium is then possible, but only if there are many patches of marginal quality. This article shows that the combination of both evolutionary and ecological stability criteria not only allows one to test whether ecological theories are compatible with the theory of natural selection but may also lead to new insights, such as why low-quality patches may constitute a partial refuge for the prey.

[1]  S. Hubbard,et al.  Adaptive search strategies in insect parasites , 1977 .

[2]  J. M. Smith,et al.  The Logic of Animal Conflict , 1973, Nature.

[3]  Thomas L. Vincent,et al.  The evolutionary response of systems to a changing environment , 1989 .

[4]  M. Hassell,et al.  The Dynamics of Optimally Foraging Predators and Parasitoids , 1979 .

[5]  J. Roughgarden.  Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction , 1995 .

[6]  A. Nicholson,et al.  The Balance of Animal Populations.—Part I. , 1935 .

[7]  R. May,et al.  STABILITY IN INSECT HOST-PARASITE MODELS , 1973 .

[8]  R. Fritz,et al.  Host plant variation in mortality of the leaf‐folding sawfly on the arroyo willow , 1990 .

[9]  M. Milinski,et al.  Games fish play: Making decisions as a social forager. , 1988, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[11]  Minimax strategies for a predator—Prey game , 1982 .

[12]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Aggregation and the `ideal free ` distribution , 1983 .

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

[14]  R. Holt.  Population dynamics in two-patch environments: Some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution , 1985 .

[15]  John H. Lawton,et al.  On the Inadequacy of Simple Models of Mutual Interference for Parasitism and Predation , 1977 .

[16]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  5. Renewing the Dialogue between Theory and Experiments in Population Ecology , 1989 .

[17]  M. Hassell.  The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. , 1979, Monographs in population biology.

[18]  G. Valladares.  HOST-PLANT SELECTION IN THE HOLLY LEAF- MINER: DOES MOTHER KNOW BEST? , 1991 .

[19]  S. Hubbard,et al.  OPTIMAL FORAGING BY PARASITOID WASPS , 1978 .

[20]  J M Smith,et al.  Evolution and the theory of games , 1976 .

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

[22]  A. Sih.  The Behavioral Response Race Between Predator and Prey , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[23]  R. Muniappan,et al.  Interaction between Plant Resistance and Parasitism against the Greenbug on Barley and Sorghum , 1972 .