Commercial Law Memory Aid San Beda

CHAPTER
12
Species Interactions,
Population Dynamics,
and Natural Selection
© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.
Elements of ECOLOGY Lecture Presentation by

NINTH EDITION, GLOBAL EDITION
Carla Ann Hass
Penn State University
Thomas M. Smith • Robert Leo Smith
Chapter 12 Species Interactions, Population
Dynamics, and Natural Selection
 Different species interact in a number of ways
within a habitat
 What resource requirements do different species of
plants have in common?
 What types of interactions exist between animal and
plant species?
 What types of interactions exist among animal
species?
 How can species interactions be categorized?

 Most plants require the same resources
 water, light, carbon dioxide, other essential nutrients
 Competition for these resources among different
species can be intense
 Acquisition of resources by individuals of one
species reduces availability for individuals of other
species

 Heterotrophs have a broad range of potential
species interactions
 feeding – predator and prey (a plant or another
animal)
 competition for resources
 using another organism as habitat
 a fungus (parasite) living on a host
 Not all interactions among species are negative
 Some can benefit both species

 Species interactions affect the population dynamics
for each species involved
 influence the processes of birth and death
 differentially influence survival and reproduction of
individuals
 These interactions can be agents of natural
selection, playing an important role in evolution

Section 12.1 Species Interactions Can Be
Classified Based on Their Reciprocal Effects
 What are the possible types of interactions among
individuals of two different species?
 How can these interactions be classified?

 The effects of one species on another can be
 positive ()
 detrimental ()
 neutral or no effect (0)

 Categories of relationships
 Neutral
 When neither species affects the other
 The relationship is (0 0) – neutral for both
 Mutualism
 When both species mutually benefit from the
interaction
 The relationship is ( ) – positive for both
 Many examples from pollination biology

 Commensalism
 When one species benefits and the other is
unaffected
 The relationship is ( 0) – beneficial for one, neutral
for the other
 For example, an orchid growing on a tree limb

Figure 12.1

 Competition is detrimental to the populations of
both species ( )
 Both species compete for a resource or resources
 Amensalism is detrimental to one species while the
other is unaffected ( 0)
 Considered by some ecologists to be a form of
asymmetric competition, such as when a taller plant
species shades a shorter plant species

 There are multiple types of relationships where one
species benefits, but the other is harmed ( )
 Predation
 One species feeds on another, killing it
 Parasitism
 One species feeds on another, reducing its fitness but
not killing it
 Parasatoidism
 One species uses another for reproduction, and its
larvae feed on it, eventually killing it

 Summary of interactions among species

Table 12.1

Section 12.2 Species Interactions Influence
Population Dynamics
 Most species interactions are interactions among
individual organisms
 How do these interactions affect population
dynamics?
 How can the effect of these interactions on
population growth be modeled?

Population Dynamics
 Interactions with individuals of different species have
effects on population growth of a species
 When a predator kills prey, the predator is an agent
of mortality
 As the number of predators (Npredator) increases, the
number of prey captured and killed increases,
increasing the death rate of the prey population (dprey)

Population Dynamics
 Can be represented as a linear relationship

Figure 12.2a
Death rate of prey species (dprey)
d0prey is the death rate of

the prey population when
the size of the predator
population is zero
The death rate of the

prey population increases
as the number of predators
increase
d0prey
0
Predator population size (Npredator)
(a)
Population Dynamics
 As the number of predators (Npredator) increases, the
probability of an individual in the prey population
(Nprey) being captured and killed increases
 This leads to a decline in the growth rate of the prey
population
 This is very similar to the relationship seen in
density-dependent population regulation
 expands that concept to include the interaction
between species

Population Dynamics
 This approach can also be used to examine species
interactions with positive effects
 In predator-prey interactions, the predator benefits
as the prey provide a food resource
 If the ability of a predator to capture and kill prey
increases as the number of prey increase
 If the reproductive fitness of a predator is directly
related to the consumption of prey
 Then the birthrate of the predator (bpredator) should
increase as Nprey increases

Population Dynamics
 There is a direct link between the availability of prey
and the birthrate of the predator population
(dNpredator/dt)

Figure 12.2b
Birthrate of predator species (bpred)
The birthrate of the predator

population increases as the size
of the prey population increases
0
Prey population size (Nprey)
(b)
Population Dynamics
 The logistic model of population growth includes the
effects of intraspecific competition and density-
dependent population regulation through the
concept of carrying capacity (K)
 As dN/dt approaches 0, the population approaches K
 This equation can be expanded to model
interspecific competition
 Have a population of grazing antelope in a grassland
 Use a subscript 1 to refer to this species as species 1
 dN1/dt  r1N1 (1  N1/K1)

Population Dynamics
 Add a second species of antelope living in the same
grassland
 Individuals in this species (species 2) have the same
body size and exactly the same rate of food
consumption as individuals in species 1
 The presence of this second species will have an
impact on the carrying capacity for species 1 (K1)
that can be included in the logistic growth equation
as N2
dN1/dt  r1N1(1  (N1  N2)/K1)

Population Dynamics
 dN1/dt  r1N1(1  (N1  N2)/K1)
 If K1  1000 individuals, this is also the combined K
for both species because they use exactly the same
resource in the same way
 If N2  250, the presence of that species effectively
reduces K for species 1 from 1000 to 750 individuals
 The population growth rate (dN1/dt) now depends on
the population sizes of both species relative to K

Figure 12.3a
Carrying capacity of Species 1

(0, 1000)
1000 K1  1000
The line represents the

(250, 750)
750 combined populations
Population size (N2)
of species 1 and
species 2 (N1, N2) that
equal the carrying
(500, 500) capacity of species 1
500 (K1)
250 (750, 250)
(1000, 0)
0
0 250 500 750 1000
(a)

Population Dynamics
 Species 1 alone with N1  400
 dN1/dt  r1N1 (1  N1/K1)
 dN1/dt  0.15  400 (1  400/1000)  36
 Species 1 at N1  400 and species 2 at N2  250
 dN1/dt  r1N1(1  (N1  N2)/K1)
 dN1/dt  0.15  400 (1  (400  250)/1000)  21
 The model predicts that there will be 15 fewer
individuals of species 1 added to the population at a
population size of 400 because of the effect of
species 2

Figure 12.3b
Note that the growth rate (dN1/dt) approaches zero when

the combined population sizes of species 1 and species 2
approach the carrying capacity of species 1 (K1  1000)
1000
750
500
250
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time
N2  0 N2  500
N2  250 N2  750
(b)
Population Dynamics
 In most cases, the two species will not be identical in
their use of resources
 It is necessary to evaluate the overlap in resource
use and quantify the equivalency of one species to
another
 The nature of the interaction can be classified as
neutral, positive, or negative and the influence
examined in terms of its effect on survival and/or
reproduction of individuals of both species

Quantifying Ecology 12.1 Incorporating
Competitive Interactions in Models of
Population Growth
 Two species living in the same habitat are unlikely to
be identical in their resource use
 How do you model competition when the use of a
shared limited resource is not exactly the same?

Population Growth
 The model must include a conversion factor that
describes the impact of an individual of one species
on the other species
 Modify the antelope example
 Now individuals of species 2 have half the body
mass of species 1 and eat half as much grass
 The competition coefficient () that describes the
impact of an individual of species 2 on species 1
would be 0.5

Population Growth
 The equation that models competition
dN1/dt  r1N1(1  (N1  N2)/K1)
is modified to include this competition coefficient
dN1/dt  r1N1(1  (N1  N2)/K1)
 Using the previous example
 where   1.0
dN1/dt  0.15  400(1  (400  250)/1000)  21
 where   0.5
dN1/dt  0.15  400(1  (400  [0.5  250)/1000)  28
Seven more individuals of species 1 would be added

Population Growth
 The growth rate of species 1 (dN1/dt) approaches
zero as the combined populations of species 1 and
2 (N1  0.5N2) approach 1000, the value of K1
 What about the effect of species 2 on the growth
rate of species 1?
 How would this be modeled?

Population Growth
 Individuals of species 2 have half the body mass of
species 1 and eat half as much grass
 The value of K2  2000
 The impact of an individual of species 1 on species
2 is equal to two individuals of species 2
 The competition coefficient () that describes the
impact of an individual of species 1 on species 2
would be 2.0

Population Growth
 This model includes that competition coefficient
dN2/dt  r2N2(1  (N2  N1)/K2)
where   2.0 and K2  2000
dN2/dt  r2N2(1  (N2  2.0N1)/2000)
 Even for closely related species, many factors

influence the competitive effects that they have on
each other, and this makes quantifying these species
interactions challenging

There are two species of kangaroos rats living in a desert
in Arizona. Both compete for the same seeds, which are a
very limited resource. Species 1 is three times as large as
species 2 and requires approximately three times the
number of seeds, so an individual of species 2 has about
30 percent of the impact on an individual of species 1 as
another member of species 1. If K1 for this environment is
5000, N1  1000, N2  1500, and r1  0.24, what is dN1/dt?
A. 30
B. 94
C. 168
D. 192
E. 500
There are two species of kangaroos rats living in a desert
in Arizona. Both compete for the same seeds, which are a
very limited resource. Species 1 is three times as large as
species 2 and requires approximately three times the
number of seeds, so an individual of species 2 has about
30 percent of the impact on an individual of species 1 as
another member of species 1. If K1 for this environment is
5000, N1  1000, N2  1500, and r1  0.24, what is dN1/dt?
A. 30
B. 94
C. 168
D. 192
E. 500
Species 2 has been completely killed off in this habitat
by a virus affecting only that species; species 1 is
unaffected by the virus and now no longer competes
with species 2. If the parameters remain the same (K1
for this environment is 5000, N1  1000, and r1  0.24),
what is dN1/dt?
A. 30
B. 94
C. 168
D. 192
E. 500

Species 2 has been completely killed off in this habitat
by a virus affecting only that species; species 1 is
unaffected by the virus and now no longer competes
with species 2. If the parameters remain the same (K1
for this environment is 5000, N1  1000, and r1  0.24),
what is dN1/dt?
A. 30
B. 94
C. 168
D. 192
E. 500

Section 12.3 Species Interactions Can
Function as Agents of Natural Selection
 The interaction between two species do not affect all
individuals within the two populations equally
 What factors lead to different effects on different
individuals?
 How can these interactions lead to natural
selection?

 Interactions among species involve a diversity of
physiological processes and behavioral activities
that are affected by phenotypic characteristics of the
individuals in the populations (physiological,
morphological, and behavioral)
 These phenotypic characteristics are variable
among individuals in the populations, leading to
differences in the type and degree of interactions
that occur

 A species of seed-eating birds feeds on the seeds of
one species of plant
 Seed size (a heritable characteristic) in this plant is
highly variable; some individual plants produce large
seeds and some produce small seeds, with a range
of sizes in between

Figure 12.4a
(proportion of population)
Frequency
Original distribution of seed

sizes within the plant
population.
Seed size (mm)

(a)

 The larger a seed is, the thicker its seed coat and
the more difficult it is for a bird’s bill to crush
 if the seed coat is not broken, the seed will not be
digested, providing no food value to the bird
 Bill size is variable in the bird population
 The birds prefer to eat smaller seeds

Figure 12.4b
Frequency
Original distribution of bill

sizes within the bird
population.
Bill size (mm)

(b)

Figure 12.4c
Distribution of seed sizes

selected by the birds.
Because smaller seeds are
easier to crack, the population
Proportion
of birds exhibit a preference

of diet
for feeding on smaller-sized

seeds. The reduction in
reproductive success of
plants producing smaller
seeds results in an increase
in the relative fitness of
Seed size (mm) individual plants that produce
(c) larger seeds.

 By selecting the small seeds, the birds are reducing
the fitness of the plants that produce small seeds
 This results in a shift in the phenotypes in the plant
population to plants that produce larger, harder
seeds
 The bird population is the agent of selection, over
time causing a genetic change in the plant
population

Figure 12.4d
As a result of selective
pressures imposed by the bird
population, there is a shift in

the distribution of seed sizes
in the plant population. The
Frequency
increase in the relative fitness

of plants producing larger
seeds results in an increase in
the average size of seeds
produced by the plant
population. Compare with
Seed size (mm) original distribution of seed
(d) sizes in population shown in
(a).

 This change in the phenotypic distribution of the
plant population will change the food resources
available for the birds
 There will be fewer smaller seeds, reducing the
available food for birds with smaller bills and
reducing their fitness
 Over time, the phenotypes in the bird population will
shift toward larger bills; the plant population is acting
as a selective agent on the bird population

Figure 12.4e
The shift in the distribution of

seed resources (d) results in
an increase in the relative
Frequency
fitness of individual birds with

larger bills. The resulting
selective pressure results in a
shift in the distribution of
phenotypes (bill sizes) within
the bird population. Compare
with the original distribution of
Bill size (mm) beak sizes shown in (b).
(e)

 Coevolution is the process in which two species
undergo reciprocal evolutionary change through
natural selection
 These responses can be either counter adaptive
changes, attempting to thwart the other species
 often seen in predator-prey relationships
 Or they can reinforce the effect of the adaptive
change in mutually beneficial interactions
 often seen between flowering plants and their animal
pollinators

 Many plants depend on animal pollinators to
transport pollen from one individual to another
 The plant must have some way to attract the
pollinator to the flower
 What are some examples of attractants?

 Some characteristics that plants use to attract
animals are signals
 brightly colored flowers
 scents
 Some characteristics are rewards
 nectar – a sugar-rich liquid produced in glands called
nectaries that serves only to attract pollinators
 pollen
 The animal visits a flower, which deposits pollen on
its body that it then carries to another flower

 There are many examples of coevolution between
plants with nectar-producing flowers and nectar-
feeding birds
 Hummingbirds have very long bills that are
specialized for extracting nectar and very long
tongues to drink nectar from long, tubular flowers
 If flower size and bill size are both variable within
their populations, and both are heritable
characteristics, they can be modified through natural
selection

 Assume that a hummingbird species prefers the
flowers of one plant species because they produce
large amounts of nectar
 Flower size is variable in the population
 Plants with larger, elongated flowers produce more
nectar
 These would receive more hummingbird visits and
pollination would increase, resulting in increased
fitness
 This would shift the phenotype in the plant population
to larger flowers with more nectar

 Hummingbirds with longer bills would have greater
access to nectar
 Bill size is variable in the population
 Hummingbirds with longer bills would have more
food, and their relative fitness would increase
 Any genetic mutation that leads to increased bill length
would be selected for
 This would shift the phenotype in the hummingbird
population to longer bills

Figure 12.6

 The genetic changes happening through natural
selection in each population are reinforced by the
beneficial interaction between the species
 Coevolution can lead to specialization
 Changes in the phenotype can limit that ability of a
species to engage in similar interactions with other
species
 The increase in bill size for the hummingbird will limit
its ability to feed on smaller flowers

 In some cases the relationship becomes obligate,
and the two species are dependent upon each other
for survival and reproduction
 What would happen if one of the two species in an
obligate relationship has a severe decline in
population size or becomes extinct?

 Interactions that negatively affect both species
involved can lead to the divergence of phenotypic
characteristics
 The divergence reduces the intensity of the
interaction
 Often seen in competitive interactions

 Two species of seed-eating birds living together on
an island
 Average body and bill size are different, but the
range of the characteristics overlaps
 smaller species with smaller bills – orange
 larger species with larger bills – green

Figure 12.7a

Frequency Frequency
(a)
(proportion of (proportion of
population) population)
Bill size (mm)

 Seed selection is related to body and bill size
 Smaller birds with smaller bills – smaller, softer
seeds
 Larger birds with larger bills – larger, harder seeds
 It is less efficient for them to feed on small seeds
 Because bill size overlaps, the birds compete for
intermediate size seeds

Figure 12.7b
Proportion of diet
Seed size (mm)

(b)

 Seed resources on the island are limited, so
competition for intermediate seeds is intense and
reduces the fitness
 of the large individuals of the small species (orange)
 of the small individuals of the large species (green)
 The average bill size for the two species diverges

Figure 12.7c

Frequency Frequency
(c)
(proportion of (proportion of
population) population)
Bill size (mm)

 This divergence in average bill and body size for the
two species reduces the competition between them

Figure 12.7d
Proportion of diet
Seed size (mm)

(d)

Section 12.4 The Nature of Species Interactions
Can Vary across Geographic Landscapes
 Some species have a wide geographic distribution
and experience a greater variety of physical
environmental conditions than species with a more
restricted range
 How does this environmental variety affect
phenotypic characteristics of a species?
 How can it affect interactions among species?

 Variation in physical environmental conditions can
lead to variation in phenotypic characteristics
 These species are more likely to have a broader
range of biotic interactions
 greater diversity of competitors, predators, pathogens
 can lead to different selective pressures and
adaptations to the local environment

 Study of geographic variation among populations of

the garter snake in western North America
 In some parts of their range, garter snakes prey on
western newts (genus Taricha) which contains a
neurotoxin, tetrodotoxin (TTX)
 Some garter snakes are resistant to this toxin
 Both the TTX concentration in the newts and the
TTX resistance of garter snakes show geographic
variation

Figure 12.8a
(a)

 Has TTX resistance in populations of garter snakes
coevolved in response to the toxicity of the newt
populations on which they feed?
 Edmund Brodie, Jr. and colleagues assessed TTX
resistance in more than 2900 garter snakes from 40
local populations
 Results – the level of TTX resistance in snake
populations varies with the presence of toxic newts
 newts absent/nontoxic – minimal resistance to TTX
 newts toxic – some level of TTX resistance
 The greater the toxicity of the newts, the higher the level
of snake resistance in the population
Figure 12.8b
1.0
0.8
Resistance
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000
TTX Dose
(b) Dose-response curves for five representative populations of garter snake.
Figure 12.8c
60
Snake resistance (50% dose TTX)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Newt toxicity (mg TTX/g skin)
(c) Relationship between 50 percent dose response (snake resistance) and
newt toxicity (TTX concentration of skin).
 The qualitative natures of species interactions can
be altered if the background environment changes
 Mycorhizzal fungi infect the root systems of many
plants, increasing surface area for water and
nutrient uptake; the fungus receives carbon from the
plant
 In environments with low levels of soil nutrients
 Interaction benefits both the fungus and the plant
( )
 In environments with abundant soil nutrients
 Interaction benefits the fungus but not the plant ( )
Figure 12.9a
Plant with
mycorrhizal fungi
Plant size
Plant without
mycorrhizal fungi
low Soil nutrient concentration high

(a)

Figure 12.9b
(growth with / growth without mycorrhizal fungi)
At low concentrations of soil nutrients,

the plant with fungi has a net benefit
>1 compared to the plant without fungi
Growth benefit
At higher nutrient concentrations, the

<1
fungi represent a carbon cost with
little if any associated benefit
low Soil nutrient concentration high

(b)
Diffuse
 These diffuse interactions can be competitive
 In most terrestrial communities, there are many
animals that feed on seeds – insects, birds, small
mammals
 These diffuse interactions can be mutualistic
 In plant-pollinator interactions, most plants are
pollinated by multiple animal species, and most
pollinators pollinate multiple plant species
 Plants and pollinators form pollination networks
 Diffuse coevolution – a network of species
undergoes reciprocal evolutionary change through
natural selection
Figure 12.10
Common
foxglove
European
Honeybee
Hummingbird
flower
Orange-belted
Bumblebee
California
milkweed
Rufous
Hummingbird
Kincaid’s
lupine
Monarch
butterfly
Wild
geranium
Fender’s blue
butterfly
Common
daisy
Diffuse
 In diffuse coevolution, groups of species interact
with other groups of species
 Natural selection and the evolutionary changes that
result are not examples of specific, pairwise
coevolution between two species, but are examples
of coevolution among multiple species

Diffuse
 In the garter snake/newt example, the evolution of
TTX resistance in the snakes is not the result of
interactions with one species
 There are three species and four subspecies of
western newts that all produce TTX
 Garter snakes are not the only predators of Taricha
 The evolution of TTX toxicity provides the newts with
a defense mechanism against multiple predators in
their environment

the Species’ Niche
 The characteristics that distinguish each species
often reflect adaptations that allow individuals of that
species to survive, grow, and reproduce under a
particular set of environmental conditions
 The ecological niche of a species is the range of
physical and chemical conditions under which that
species is able to survive and reproduce

 The ecological niche concept was independently
developed by two ecologists
 Grinnell emphasized the role of habitat and limitations
imposed by the physical environment
 Elton emphasized species interactions and the role of
the species in relation to its community
 Hutchinson expanded the concept of the niche as a
multidimensional hypervolume
 Each dimension is a variable that relates to a specific
resource or environmental factor that is needed for
the species to survive and reproduce

 Three dimensions in an aquatic environment
 temperature, salinity, pH

Figure 12.11
Temperature
(a) One dimension
Salinity
Temperature
(b) Two dimensions
Salinity
Temperature
(c) Three dimensions
 Fundamental niche – the environmental conditions
under which a species can survive and reproduce
 sometimes called the physiological niche
 the set of environmental conditions under which a
species can persist
 Realized niche – the portion of the fundamental
niche that a species actually uses as a result of
interactions with other species

Figure 12.12
Species 1 Species 2 Species 1 Species 2
Resource utilization
Resource utilization
Absence of With interspecific

interspecific competition
competition Realized niche
Fundamental niche
Resource gradient Resource gradient
(a) The fundamental niches (solid curves) represent resource

use in the absence of the other species (no competition)
(b) the realized niches (dashed curves) represent resource use in the presence of
competing species. Competition is a function of overlap in resource use.)
 Competition can restrict the fundamental niche
 Two species of cattail, a plant, live along pond
shorelines in Michigan
 wide-leaved cattail – dominates shallow water
 narrow-leaved cattail – lives in deeper water farther
from shore
 When these species grow alone, both can survive in
shallow water
 Only the narrow-leaved species can grow in water
deeper than 80 cm

 When they grow together, the wide-leaved species
excludes the narrow-leaved species from shallow
water, so it is found only in depths of 20 cm or
greater

Figure 12.13
Distribution of two species of cattail (Typha latifolia

and Typha angustifolia):
20
Water
Water table surface
0
Water depth (cm)
20
40
60
80
(a)
along a gradient of water depth
80 1600 T. latifolia
T. angustifolia
(g, ash-free dry wt/m2)

T. latifolia
Natural populations,
(g, ash-free dry wt/tub)
without competition
T. angustifolia
production
Transplants
40 800
0 0
20 20 60 100 20 20 60 100
(b ) Water depth (cm) (c) Water depth (cm)
grown separately in an experiment growing together in natural populations

 Positive interactions can also modify a species’
fundamental niche
 mutualism and commensalism
 These interactions directly or indirectly enhance
survival and reproduction of individuals, expanding
the range of conditions under which the species can
persist
 Would result in a realized niche that is larger than
the fundamental niche

 Rhizobium are nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live
within the root systems of some plants and provide
them with nitrogen, allowing them to live in soils with
a low nitrogen content
 Without Rhizobium, the plants would be restricted to
a narrower range of soils with higher levels of
nitrogen

 Biotic interactions can play an important role in
determining a species’ fundamental niche when
species interactions serve as a selective agent,
leading to phenotypic characteristics that are
adaptations to those selective pressures

Section 12.7 Species Interactions Can Drive
Adaptive Radiation
 Through adaptive radiation, one species gives rise
to a number of species that use different parts of the
environment, such as habitats or resources
 Different features of the environment exert selective

pressures
 These lead to phenotypic divergence among
populations
 Reproductive isolation may be a by-product of
changes in morphology, behavior, physiology, habitat
preference

Adaptive Radiation
 Biotic interactions are likely to vary among the
different populations
 can also lead to phenotypic divergence
 Resource competition can drive phenotypic
divergence
 Species of the globeflower fly (Chiastocheta)
illustrate an adaptive radiation resulting from
resource competition
 At least six closely related species lay their eggs on
globeflower fruits

Adaptive Radiation
 These species vary in the timing of egg laying
(oviposition)
 One species oviposits in 1-day-old flowers
 All other species sequentially oviposit throughout the
life span of the flower
 The evolutionary divergence of species was the
result of disruptive selection on oviposition timing
 These differences in timing, both oviposition and
subsequent larval development, function to minimize
competition

Adaptive Radiation
 Many studies have shown the role that competition
plays in adaptive radiation
 Research with stick insects (Timema cristinae) has
shown that adaptive radiation can result from
divergent adaptations to avoid predators
 These Timema walking sticks are wingless insects
that live in southwestern North America
 They feed and mate on the host plants that they live
on

Adaptive Radiation
 Ecotypes are populations of the same species that
are each adapted to their local environment
 The two Timema ecotypes are adapted to feeding
on two different host plants
 differ in 11 quantitative traits that are part of color,
color pattern, body size, body shape
 The two host plants have very different foliage
 Ceanothus – large, tree-like, with broad leaves
 Adenostoma – small, shrub-like, with needle-like
leaves
 Each ecotype is more cryptic on its own host plant
Adaptive Radiation
 Field experiments show that the divergent traits are
adaptations that reduce predation rates

Figure 12.15
Contrasting phenotypic traits of two ecotypes of the
walking stick
Timema cristinae
Green (Ceanothus)
Timema cristinae
Striped (Adenostoma)
Ecological Issues & Applications:
Urbanization Has Negatively Impacted Most
Species while Favoring a Few
 Interactions with humans have a significant impact
on may other organisms
 Human activities have led to loss of habitat through
the change in land-use patterns
 What types of effects does the conversion of land to
urban environments have on other species?

 The increasing urbanization of the human population
has led to a new field in ecology
 Urban ecology – the study of the ecology or
organisms in the contest of the urban environment

Figure 12.16
200 80%
180 70%
Population (in millions)

160
Percent of population
60%
140
120 50%
100 40%
80 30%
60
20%
Growth of rural and 40
20 10%
urban 0 0
population in the 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year
United States Total urban population
Total rural population
over the 20th % of U.S. population in urban areas
century % of U.S. population in rural areas
(a)
Percentage of global population (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Urban population
Rural population
(b)
 In urban environments, species interactions are
dominated by humans
 Most species are negatively impacted
 Only a few benefit
 Estimates of urban land use vary from 0.5 to 2.0 percent
of the world’s land
 Urban areas are expanding faster than their populations
 In the United States
 Thirty percent of the population lives in cities
 Fifty percent lives in the suburbs of cities

 Urban expansion leads to
 large local extinction rates
 elimination of the majority of native species
 Comparison of the distribution of bird species in an
urban area compared to the surrounding natural
ecosystem for Phoenix, Arizona and Baltimore,
Maryland
 The general pattern is one of decline in the number of
species in the urban environment compared to
surrounding agricultural and natural ecosystems
 What causes this pattern?

Figure 12.17
Number of bird species

45
40
35
30
25
20
Desert Urban
(a) Phoenix, Arizona
Number of bird species
40
30
20
Forest Urban
(b) Baltimore, Maryland
 Urban areas often have drastic physical changes
compared to the surrounding rural habitat
 Moving from natural ecosystems and cultivated
areas into a suburban and then urban landscape is
movement through a very heterogenous mixture of
 residential areas
 commercial areas
 managed areas with vegetation – parks, cemeteries
 Species are lost mainly as a result of habitat
alteration
 Another pattern seen in both suburban and urban areas
is an increase in population density of species compared
to adjacent natural areas
 Study of northern cardinals in the Cleveland
metropolitan area and surrounding forests in central
Ohio
 Birds were four times more abundant in urban areas
than rural forests
 food abundance up to four times greater in urban area
 exotic vegetation, bird feeders, refuse

 Some smaller mammals find shelter underneath
buildings and abundant food
 raccoons – garbage
 skunks – insects and larvae in lawns and gardens
 rabbits – vegetation in gardens and flower beds
 Some larger mammals also do well
 white-tailed deer – food in shrubs, lawns, and gardens
 Canada geese – large open areas of grass
 coyotes – garbage and small prey, including pets
 black bears – garbage and bird feeders
 There is a reduction in predator populations in urban
environments
 Evidence supports the idea that they are safer for
some species than rural habitats
 Birds and squirrels in urban environments
 suffer less nest predation
 are able to spend more time foraging

 Some species adapted to suburban habitats drop
out as they approach urban centers
 The habitat changes dramatically
 Vegetation is mainly limited to parks, tree-lined
streets, vacant lots
 What types of species do well in the habitat found in
urban centers?

 Urban exploiters
 Among plants, ruderal species that tolerate high
levels of disturbance, such as those that can grow in
or around pavement of wind-dispersed seeds
 Among birds, species that are adapted to nesting in
similar environments
 pigeons (rock doves) – rocky, cliff-like areas
 peregrine falcons – cliff ledges
 house sparrows, house finches, European starlings –
cavity-nesting species that can nest in buildings
 Among mammals, species that can nest in buildings and
exploit refuse as a food source
 house mice
 black and brown rats
 Many of these urban exploiters are not native species
but disperse from city to city, mainly through human
assistance
 more than 50 percent non-natives at the urban core
 pigeons, starlings, house sparrows, Norway rats, house
mouse live in all cities in Europe and North America

 The effect of urbanization, leading to negative
interactions with native species and providing
environments in which non-native species flourish, is
resulting in biotic homogenization
 The gradual replacement of regionally distinct
ecological communities with cosmopolitan
communities that reflect the increasing global
activity of humans

Commercial Law Memory Aid San Beda

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Commercial Law Memory Aid San Beda

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CHAPTER

Elements of ECOLOGY Lecture Presentation by

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

Death rate of prey species (dprey)

d0prey is the death rate of

The death rate of the

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

Birthrate of predator species (bpred)

The birthrate of the predator

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

Carrying capacity of Species 1

The line represents the

250 (750, 250)

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

Note that the growth rate (dN1/dt) approaches zero when

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

 Even for closely related species, many factors

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

Original distribution of seed

Seed size (mm)

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

Original distribution of bill

Bill size (mm)

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

Distribution of seed sizes

of birds exhibit a preference

for feeding on smaller-sized

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.

population, there is a shift in

increase in the relative fitness

© 2016 Pearson Education, Ltd.