Individual-based modelling and ecological theory: synthesis of a workshop

Abstract Twelve papers featured in a special issue on individual-based modelling in ecology are reviewed in an effort to identify common methodological and theoretical issues. The review focuses on issues related to the question of whether and how individual-based modelling is changing ecological theory. One major hindrance impeding the generation of theory from individual-based models (IBMs) is the fact that IBMs are more or less complex computer simulation models. They are thus hard to develop, hard to communicate, and hard to analyse. Solving this problem requires both software tools which help to implement and communicate IBMs and at least the same effort in analysing the models as is currently put into their development. A new field of application of IBMs is Virtual Ecology, i.e. the comparison of simulated data sets with those obtained by virtual (i.e. simulated) ecologists. This method allows field methods, empirical measures and sampling protocols to be optimised. As far as theoretical issues are concerned, individual variability was by far the most important issue discussed in the papers. Previously most studies concentrated on the mechanisms generating individual variability, but there is now also a growing number of models addressing the consequences of individual variability for population and community dynamics. In order to determine these consequences, a currency is required which allows the model populations to be evaluated. Persistence and other stability properties are proposed as such a unifying currency. The lesson contained in our review is that even with just twelve papers more or less explicitly oriented towards ecological theory, elements of a theory that might emerge from individual-based modelling in the future can already be identified.

[1]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  New Computer Models Unify Ecological TheoryComputer simulations show that many ecological patterns can be explained by interactions among individual organisms , 1988 .

[2]  Christian Wissel,et al.  Aims and limits of ecological modelling exemplified by island theory , 1992 .

[3]  J Uchmański,et al.  Individual-based modelling in ecology: what makes the difference? , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[4]  Simon A. Levin,et al.  Frontiers in Mathematical Biology , 1995 .

[5]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  Individual-Based Models and Approaches in Ecology , 1992 .

[6]  John M. Fryxell,et al.  Individual Behavior and Community Dynamics , 1997, Population and Community Biology Series.

[7]  V. Grimm Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? , 1999 .

[8]  Lutz Tischendorf,et al.  Modelling individual movements in heterogeneous landscapes: potentials of a new approach , 1997 .

[9]  Uta Berger,et al.  Virtual biologists observe virtual grasshoppers: an assessment of different mobility parameters for the analysis of movement patterns , 1999 .

[10]  Michael Sonnenschein,et al.  Object-oriented support for modelling and simulation of individual-oriented ecological models , 1998 .

[11]  K. Rose,et al.  Factors Affecting Competitive Dominance of Rainbow Trout over Brook Trout in Southern Appalachian Streams: Implications of an Individual-Based Model , 1997 .

[12]  Denis Mollison,et al.  Modelling biological invasions: chance, explanation, prediction , 1986 .

[13]  Christian Wissel,et al.  Modelling Extinction and Survival of Small Populations , 1994 .

[14]  J. Weiner,et al.  Asymmetric competition in plant populations. , 1990, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[16]  Karin Ulbrich,et al.  Intraspecific competition in a social spider , 1999 .

[17]  Anthony M. Starfield,et al.  Building Models for Conservation and Wildlife Management , 1988 .

[18]  Stefan Halle,et al.  Modelling activity synchronisation in free-ranging microtine rodents , 1999 .

[19]  Paulien Hogeweg,et al.  Sequential Predation: A Multi-model Study , 1995 .

[20]  Eric P. M. Grist,et al.  Seasonal and genotypic influences on life cycle synchronisation: further insights from annual squid , 1999 .

[21]  D. P. Aikman,et al.  A Model for Growth and Self-thinning in Even-aged Monocultures of Plants , 1980 .

[22]  A. Łomnicki Individual-based models and the individual-based approach to population ecology , 1999 .

[23]  Donald L. DeAngelis,et al.  Individual-Oriented Approaches to Modeling Ecological Populations and Communities , 1994 .

[24]  Janusz Uchmański,et al.  What promotes persistence of a single population: an individual-based model , 1999 .

[25]  Thomas Stephan,et al.  The extinction risk of a population exploiting a resource , 1999 .

[26]  Michael Sonnenschein,et al.  Modelling and simulation software to support individual-based ecological modelling , 1999 .

[27]  Christian Wissel,et al.  Babel, or the ecological stability discussions: an inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion , 1997, Oecologia.

[28]  L. R. Benjamin A comparison of different rules of partitioning of crop growth between individual plants , 1999 .

[29]  Tomasz Wyszomirski,et al.  Simple mechanisms of size distribution dynamics in crowded and uncrowded virtual monocultures , 1999 .

[30]  Heikki Hirvonen,et al.  Significance of memory properties in prey choice decisions , 1999 .

[31]  Christian Wissel,et al.  On the application of stability concepts in ecology , 1992 .

[32]  Thomas M. Smith,et al.  The potential for application of individual-based simulation models for assessing the effects of global change , 1992 .

[33]  Henry D. Shapiro,et al.  An Artificial Life Approach to Host-Parasite Interactions , 1997 .

[34]  Jana Verboom,et al.  Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS based random walk model , 1996 .

[35]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Assessing the Data Requirements of Spatially Explicit Dispersal Models , 1997 .

[36]  S. Levin,et al.  Evolution and spatial structure interact to influence plant–herbivore population and community dynamics , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Building Models for Conservation and Wildlife Management , 1987 .

[38]  Douglas H. Deutschman,et al.  Details That Matter: The Spatial Distribution of Individual Trees Maintains Forest Ecosystem Function , 1995 .

[39]  B. Danielson,et al.  Spatially Explicit Population Models: Current Forms and Future Uses , 1995 .