interactions within communities (iii) december 3, 2010 text p. 676-680

35
Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Upload: phillip-snow

Post on 20-Jan-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Interactions Within Communities (III)

December 3, 2010

Text p. 676-680

Page 2: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Re-Visit: Mullerian Mimicry• Predators and prey can protect themselves through

mimicry

• Unrelated species that resemble each other and are all poisonous or “distasteful”

• Why Mullerian? If predator is confused between 2 species, means both are more likely to survive

Page 3: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

• To understand competition, must look at the ecological niche

Page 4: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Ecological Niche

• The use of, and interaction with, abiotic and biotic resources in its environment

Habitat = organism’s “address”

Ecological Niche = organism’s “occupation”

Page 5: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 6: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Ecological Niche• Can include:

– Prey– Predators– Reproductive methods– Temperature range– Habitat– Behaviour

Page 7: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Fundamental Niche

• Biological characteristics of the organism and the set of resources individuals in the population are theoretically capable of using under ideal conditions

• Ideal conditions– Abundant resources– No competition from other species

Page 8: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Realized Niche

• What the organism actually uses under prevailing environmental conditions

• Because of competition with other organisms for similar resources, a species can only use a portion of its fundamental niche

Page 9: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 10: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Competition• Interaction within communities• May be detrimental to one or both species

• Two Types:– Interspecific – interactions between individuals of

different species for an essential common resource that is in limited supply

– Intraspecific – interactions between individuals of the same species or population competing for resources in their habitats

Page 11: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Interspecific Competition

• Purpose: to restrict population growth

• 2 Types:– Interference competition– Exploitative competition

Page 12: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Interference Competition

• Aggression between individuals of different species, fighting over the same resource

• Typically detrimental to both individuals of the different species involved

• Asymmetric – one species has an advantage over the other

Page 13: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 14: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 15: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Exploitative Competition

• Consumption of resources by two species, but one species may limit resource availability to other species

• One species more efficiently uses a resource

Page 16: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Reduction in Survival

Page 17: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 18: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Principle of Competitive Exclusion• THEORY: if resources are limited, no two species

can remain in competition indefinitely

Species A Niche

Species B Niche

Competition Heavy competition leads to competitive exclusion – one species must go

Page 19: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Gause• Russian Ecologist G.F. Gause• Competitive Exclusion aka Gause’s Principle

– Two species with similar requirements could not coexist in the same community

Page 20: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Paramecium sp.

Page 21: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Red Squirrel Grey Squirrel

Introduced between 1876-1929

Page 22: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Related Types of Interspecific Competition

• Apparent competition– 2 species share a predator– The two prey can compete with each other to

make themselves less available for consumption

• Scramble competition– Inadequate resource for both species– Receive equal amounts, but not enough

Page 23: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Results of Interspecific Competition

• Population size of weaker competitor could decline

• One species could change behaviour to survive using different resources

• Individuals in one population could migrate where resources are more plentiful

Page 24: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Resource Partitioning

• Avoidance or reduction of competition for similar resources by different species through the use of non-overlapping ecological niches

Page 25: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Schoener, 1968

Anolis sp.

A. sagrei- Partly

terrestrial- Small and

large low perches

A. angusticeps-Small twigs at great heights

A. distichus-Trunks and large branches

A. carolinensis- Leaves and adjacent twigs

Page 26: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Foxtail

Indian Mallow

Smartweed

Page 27: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Evolutionary Adaptation

• Interspecific competition is driving force for species to evolve adaptations for continued survival

Page 28: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Classic Interspecific Competition Example:Connell’s Field Experiments

Page 29: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

The Keystone Species

• Plays a critical role in the community

• Impact is greater than expected, based on its size or abundance

• Predator-Prey – usually is a predator acting on prey with no other predators

• Good target species for conservation

Page 30: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 31: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 32: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Intraspecific Competition

• Individuals of same population (and species) competing for same resources– Food – Shelter– Mates

• As population density increases there is more competition among individuals for resources and growth rate slows

• Classic territorial behavioural

Page 33: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 34: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680
Page 35: Interactions Within Communities (III) December 3, 2010 Text p. 676-680

Last 3 Days