APPARENT COMPETITION OR APPARENT MUTUALISM? SHARED PREDATION WHEN POPULATIONS CYCLE

We use simple mathematical models to explore the indirect interactions between two prey species that share a predator when all three species undergo population cycles. The results are compared to analogous findings for systems that reach a stable equilibrium point. It is common for removal of one prey from a cycling system to result in a decrease in the mean density of the remaining prey species, contrary to the usual logic of apparent competition. Even when apparent competition between prey exists, its magnitude is usually reduced by population cycles. This effect occurs when the predator has a concave- down relationship between prey abundance and its own per capita growth rate. Such re- lationships can occur because of a saturating functional or numerical response. We inves- tigate how prey density dependence and the shape of the predator's functional and numerical responses affect the sign and magnitude of this indirect interaction between prey species. There may also be (+, -) interactions between prey that differ significantly in their sus- ceptibility to the common predator.

[1]  P. Abrams,et al.  Positive Indirect Effects Between Prey Species that Share Predators , 1996 .

[2]  Stephen P. Ellner,et al.  Chaos in a Noisy World: New Methods and Evidence from Time-Series Analysis , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[3]  G. Harrison,et al.  Comparing Predator‐Prey Models to Luckinbill's Experiment with Didinium and Paramecium , 1995 .

[4]  K. McCann,et al.  Nonlinear Dynamics and Population Disappearances , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[5]  Peter A. Abrams,et al.  The Effects of Enrichment of Three‐Species Food Chains with Nonlinear Functional Responses , 1994 .

[6]  William H. Press,et al.  The Art of Scientific Computing Second Edition , 1998 .

[7]  T. Royama,et al.  Analytical Population Dynamics , 1994, Population and Community Biology Series.

[8]  F. Messier,et al.  UNGULATE POPULATION MODELS WITH PREDATION: A CASE STUDY WITH THE NORTH AMERICAN MOOSE' , 1994 .

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

[10]  P. Yodzis,et al.  Body Size and Consumer-Resource Dynamics , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[11]  R. Reader.  Herbivory as a Confounding Factor in an Experiment Measuring Competition Among Plants , 1992 .

[12]  Peter Turchin,et al.  Complex Dynamics in Ecological Time Series , 1992 .

[13]  A. Hastings,et al.  Chaos in a Three-Species Food Chain , 1991 .

[14]  P. Abrams,et al.  The Functional Response of the Predatory Polychaete, Harmothoe sarsi, to the Amphipod, Pontoporeia affinis , 1990 .

[15]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  Prey communities in patchy environments , 1987 .

[16]  P. Abrams.  The functional responses of adaptive consumers of two resources , 1987 .

[17]  Burt P. Kotler,et al.  Short-Term Apparent Competition , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[18]  W. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing , 1987 .

[19]  W. Murdoch,et al.  Cyclic and Stable Populations: Plankton as Paradigm , 1987, The American Naturalist.

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

[21]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Perturbation Experiments in Community Ecology: Theory and Practice , 1984 .

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

[23]  Richard Levins,et al.  Coexistence in a Variable Environment , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[24]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Predator-Prey Theory and Variability , 1978 .

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

[26]  M. Gilpin.  Group selection in predator-prey communities. , 1975, Monographs in population biology.

[27]  J. A. León,et al.  Competition between two species for two complementary or substitutable resources. , 1975, Journal of theoretical biology.

[28]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Global models of growth and competition. , 1973, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  L. Luckinbill,et al.  Coexistence in Laboratory Populations of Paramecium Aurelia and Its Predator Didinium Nasutum , 1973 .

[30]  R. May,et al.  Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[31]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Exploitation in Three Trophic Levels , 1973, The American Naturalist.

[32]  Paul H. Harvey,et al.  The Analysis of Biological Populations , 1972 .

[33]  C. S. Holling.  Some Characteristics of Simple Types of Predation and Parasitism , 1959, The Canadian Entomologist.

[34]  V. Brown,et al.  Multitrophic interactions in terrestrial systems : the 36th Symposium of the British Ecological Society, Royal Holloway College, University of London, 1995 , 1997 .

[35]  B. Menge,et al.  The Role of Indirect Effects in Food Webs , 1996 .

[36]  Michael A. McCarthy,et al.  Stochastic population models for wildlife management , 1995 .

[37]  Peter J. Morin,et al.  Food Web Architecture and Population Dynamics: Theory and Empirical Evidence , 1995 .

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

[39]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  The theory of evolution and dynamical systems , 1988 .