**Lecture 21 (Wed. 13-Mar-13) Lotka-Volterra competition equations (continued).**

Return to Main Index page
Go to back to lecture 20 , Wed. 6-Mar
Go
forward
to lecture 22 of Fr. 15-Mar

Last time we used equations and graphical arguments
to explore the conditions under which the Lotka-Volterra equations
could
produce outcomes of stable coexistence and unstable coexistence.
Now we'll look at the other major possible outcome -- **competitive
exclusion**.

{Here we have two subcategories -- Species 1 always wins or Species 2
always
wins}.

Here's a graphical depiction of one of the two possible cases of **competitive
exclusion**.

Look back over Figs. 20.1 to 20.3 and Fig. 20.1. I have covered all the major possible outcomes for our two-species logistic competition model. Let's now look at an inequality-based summary of how we can analyze the stability properties of such models via equations and graphs.

Fig. 21.1Competitive exclusion of Species 2 by Species 1 (Species 1 "wins"). If the isocline of one population lies completely above the isocline of the other population, it will "win" from any starting point at which its abundance is > 0. If the isoclines do not cross, nocoexistenceequilibrium exists, the only equilibria areall Species 2(an unstable equilibrium, because as soon asN_{1}>0,N_{1}will increase to itsK_{1}and driveN_{2}locally extinct), andall Species 1(a stable equilibrium, because even if moreN_{2}show up later, the trajectories will move toward their local extinction). Here, inequalities listed in Eqns 21.1 satisfy the conditions for a "win" by species 1.

Parameter values:r_{1 }=r_{2}= 0.5;K_{1}=1,200;K_{2}= 1,000; g_{12 }=0.9; g_{21 }=1.0.

Equation-based summary of outcomes:

Again, these equations set the conditions for the three major outcomes, but it is generally much easier to use graphs to determine outcomes.Stable coexistence:K_{1}/ g_{12}>K_{2 }andK_{2}/ g_{21 }>K_{1}Eqns 21.1

Unstable coexistence:K_{1}/ g_{12}<K_{2 }andK_{2}/g_{21 }<K_{1}

Species 1 wins:K_{1}/ g_{12}>K_{2 }andK_{2}/g_{21 }<K_{1}

Species 2 wins:K_{1}/ g_{12}<K_{2 }andK_{2}/g_{21 }>K_{1}Note that the inequalities above differ in that each has a different combination of > (greater than) and < (less than) signs. The terms (which represent the

X- andY-intercepts for the isoclines) are exactly the same throughout. That is, they make statements about the order in which the isoclines hit theN_{1}andN_{2}axes.

Likewise, it is usually much easier to look at "maps" of
dispersion
to decide whether a population is clumped, randomly distributed or
uniformly
distributed than it is to use analysis of counts per quadrat and the
fit
of the data to a Poisson distribution. Nevertheless, the counts
(frequencies,
means and variances) are useful for quantifying the **degree** of
clumping
or uniformity, and for deciding whether a roughly random pattern is
somewhat
clumped or somewhat uniform. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

How can we tell which outcome will occur, just by looking at the graphs?

IF the isoclines cross in such a way that the "visitor's" isocline hits the "home" species' axisabovethe "home team's" isocline, the coexistence isstable. (Or, equivalently, if the isoclines arestraight linesand crossabovetheK-connector, then we have thestablecase).IF the isoclines cross in such a way that the "visitor's" isocline hits the "home" species axis

belowthe "home team's" isocline, the coexistence isunstable. (Or, equivalently, if the isoclines arestraight linesand crossbelowtheK-connector, then we have theunstablecase).

IF the isoclines don't cross each other then whichever species has its isocline on top will outcompete the other species and drive it to (local) extinction. (Or equivalently, if theOR... theK-connector is between the isoclines and they do not cross it, then we have the competitive exclusion case). [If most of the parameters (r_{i}andK_{i}) are equal, it will tend to be the case that g_{i }> 1 will give Speciesjan edge and lead to competitive exclusion of Speciesi(but see below)].

use the trajectory/vector method. Above theN_{1}isocline,N_{1}will be declining (leftward arrow). Below its own isoclineN_{1}will be increasing. Above theN_{2}isocline,N_{2}will be declining (downward arrow). Below theN_{2}isocline,N_{2}will be increasing (upward arrow). IF the isoclines cross, they create four "regions":1) Above both isoclines (leftward plus downward vectors yield a sum vector pointing SW);

2) above theN_{1}isocline but below theN_{2}isocline

(leftward plus upward vectors yield a sum vector pointing NW);

3) belowN_{1}isocline but aboveN_{2}isocline (rightward plus downward vectors yield a sum vector pointing SE);

4) below both isoclines (rightward plus upward vectors yield a sum vector pointing NE).

Several good points about the vector sum technique:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________a) It is quite general. It also works well for graphical analysis of predator-prey equations

and other paired equation analyses.

b) All you need to know to get started isi) which isocline is which (a species own isocline goes toitsKonitsaxis),

ii) that a species declines above its isocline and increases above it.

**Some twists (potential pitfalls) in the Lotka-Volterra approach:**

**Stable coexistence case:**

I. Stable coexistencebutbelowK-connector: the effect of curved isoclinesAyala et al. (1973) ran some interspecific competition experiments and had a puzzling outcome. They found stable coexistence in some cases where the equilibrium point (intersection of the isoclines) fell

belowtheK-connector.Puzzling data:

Fig. 21.2.Observed stable equilibrium numbers of two species ofDrosophilafollowing a competition experiment. Note that the combined population point (equilibrium) lies below theK-connector.At first this seemed impossible, given the inequalities of Eqns 21.1. The stable coexistence outcome should have an equilibrium

abovetheK-connector (see above). They carefully checked their empirically calculated estimates ofK, and found that they were repeatable and precise. What they finally realized was that they had made an assumption of linearity for the isoclines -- the factors allowed by the model led inevitably to linear isoclines. Perhaps, the conclusion that "if the isoclines intersect below theK-connector, the coexistence is unstable" rule (see above) was simply an artifact of the model assumptions.If the isoclines are linear and they cross above the

K-connector, then yes, we have the stable equilibrium case.BUT,the isoclines can cross below theK-connector, and coexistence can still be stable,IF the isoclines are curved,as in the graph below. A slightly more complex model can produce curved isoclines, and curved isoclines are consistent with the observed isoclines. When they monitored the population trajectories through time, those too were more consistent with a curved-isocline model than with the simpler linear model.

Fig. 21.3.Stable coexistence with curved isoclines. Note that the isoclines crossbelowtheK-connector. Nevertheless the intercepts satisfy the inequalities of Eqns 21.1 for stable coexistence -- that is, the "visitor" isoclines reach the intercept further out than the "home" isocline on both axes. This modification of the original linear Lotka-Volterra theory (via slightly more complex equations 21.2 and 21.3) was developed to provide an explanation for experimental results withDrosophila.

Note that the vector sum method can accommodate this sort of change in the assumptions. Try dividing a sketch of curved isoclines into four areas and putting one arrow in each zone --

1) Above both isoclines (arrow points SW). Both species decrease (towardequilibriumpoint).

2) Above Sp. 2 isocline, but below Sp. 1 isocline (the small area between the isoclines at values ofN_{2}between 200 and 300, near theN_{2}axis). Arrow points SE towardequilibriumintersection of the two isoclines.

3) Above Sp. 1 isocline but below Sp. 2 isocline (long, very narrow area between the isoclines at values ofN_{1}between 500 and 800, near theN_{1}axis). Arrow points NW towardequilibriumintersection of the two isoclines.

4) Below both isoclines (arrow points NE). Both species increase (towardequilibriumpoint).The model represented by Eqns 21.2 and 21.3 and Fig. 21.3 uses just a few additional assumptions and mathematical terms to allow us to fit a (relatively) simple model to real-world data.

For the interested (small blue font material): The curved isoclines result from using modifications of Eqns 20.1 and 20.2 with power terms:

Eqn 21.2

Eqn 21.3

All we have done to change Eqns 20.1 and 20.2 is to add power terms to the "home" species terms inside the bracket. The power terms make the isoclines nonlinear.

II. Stable coexistence with gammas unequal and one of them > 1.0:Note that we can have a stable coexistence case even if one of theg_{ij}> 1.0. That is, what matter for coexistence are the inequalities given by Eqns 21.1. [Try these values to see a stable case with a g > 1]. Parameters:r_{1 }= 0.3;r_{2 }= 0.5,K_{1}= 1,400,K_{2}= 1,000, g_{12}= 1.1, g_{21}= 0.6].

**Unstable coexistence case:**

Parameters exactly equal, equal populations sizes (unstable equilibrium):Note that we can move along a very limited set of trajectories toward unstable coexistence under certain (very unrealistic) conditions. If the two species have all parameter values the same AND the population sizes are equal, they will move toward the intersection of the two isoclines and then have no tendency to move away. As soon as one or the other gains a numerical advantage, though, it will move toward its carrying capacity while driving the other to (local) extinction. Even if we start withN_{1}>N_{2}by just one animal,N_{1}will "win". Conversely, if we start withN_{2}>N_{1}by just one animal,N_{2}will "win". Any starting points that are not along that line will not move to the equilibrium point but will curve toward the "winner's" axis. [We could also create such linear trajectories in the more complicated case that the parameter values were not exactly equal. The result would still be a line going diagonally through the equilibrium point].

References:

Ayala, F.J., M.E. Gilpin, and J.G. Ehrenfeld. 1973. Competition between species: theoretical models and experimental tests.

Theor. Pop. Biol. 4: 331-356.

**Return to top of page**
Go forward to lecture 22 of Fr. 15-Mar