Konkurencja o zasoby i drapieżnictwo jako czynniki doboru

• Authors: Joanna Gliwicz , Z. Maciej Gliwicz

Title variants

EN

Resource competion and predation as forces of natural selection

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

EN

Leaving aside autotrophic plants, algae and cyanobacteria, we discuss the relative significance of food limitation and predation as two major forces driving natural selection, both extremely selective and both density-dependent, each responsible for one of the two components of individual fitness: successful survival until first reproduction, and maximum growth and reproduction. First, we argue that other biotic factors such as parasitism and mutualism are perhaps less general and not as important in driving individual selection. Second, we argue that the importance of abiotic factors can be only in their ability to moderate the effects of resource competition and predation, since they are neither selective nor clearly density-dependent. Third, we discuss the general prey-predator models to show that the power of selection by both resource competition and predation is density-dependent. Fourth, we discuss different features of food limitation as the force of selection in aquatic and terrestrial habitats, also in relation to body size. Fifth, we compare the role of predators-hunters and predator-harvesters, and look into the relative proportions of these two categories offshore and onshore. We also compare the prey of different sizes in regards to the number and variability of predators that exploit it. Sixth, using models of functional response, we examine the dependence of prey individual risk on density of its population. We conclude that it is reduced at high density level due to risk dilution and predator's confusion, as well as below the density level that is equal to the number of prey being able to find a refuge, or to the critical prey density level at which a given prey becomes included into the predator's diet. Seven, we conclude that predation is a stronger and more efficient force of individual selection than competition, assuring that the prey wins the arm race with its predator.

• Journal: Kosmos
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 58
• Issue: 3-4
• Pages: 367-376

Dates

published

2009

Contributors

author

Joanna Gliwicz

• Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warszawa, Polska

author

Z. Maciej Gliwicz

• Zakład Hydrobiologii UW, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Polska

References

• Brooks J. L., Dodson S. I., 1965. Predation, body size and composition of plankton. Science 150, 28-35.
• Darwin K. 1859/2009. O powstawaniu gatunków drogą doboru naturalnego. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa.
• Dawkins R., Krebs J. R., 1979. Arms races within and between species. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205, 489-511.
• De Meester L., Dawidowicz P., Van Gool E., Loose C. J., 1999. Ecology and evolution of predator-induced behavior of zooplankton: depth selection behavior and diel vertical migration. [W:] The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Tollrian R. i Harvel C. D. (red). Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• Fryer G. 1959. The trophic interrelationships and ecology of some littoral communities of Lake Nyasa and a discussion on the evolution of a group of rock-frequenting Cichlidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 132, 153-281.
• Gause, G. J. 1934. The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.
• Gliwicz J. 2008. Body size relationships between avian predators and their rodent prey in a North-American sagebrush community. Acta Ornith. 42, 151-158.
• Gliwicz Z. M., Wrzosek D., 2008. Predation-mediated coexistence of large- and small-bodied Daphnia at different food levels. Am. Nat. 172, 358-374.
• Hamilton W. D., 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. J. Theor. Biol. 31, 295-311.
• Hardin G., 1960. The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131, 1292-1297.
• Holling C. S., 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91, 385-398.
• Jędrzejewska B., Jędrzejewski, W., 1998. Predation in vertebrate communities. Springer, Berlin.
• Kerfoot W. C., Sih A. (red.), 1987. Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. The University Press of New England, Hanover, N.H.
• Kornfeld I., Smith P. F., 2000. African cichlid fishes: model systems for evolutionary biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 31, 163-196.
• Lack D. L., 1947. Darwin's finches. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Lahti D. C., Johnson A. N., Ajie B. C., Otto S. P., Hendry A. P., Blumstein D. T., Coss R. G., Donohue K., Foster S. A., 2009. Relaxed selection in the wild. TREE 24, 487-496.
• Lampert W., Sommer U., 2007. Limnoecology: the ecology of lakes and streams. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
• Łomnicki A., 1988. Population ecology of individuals. Princeton University Press, Princeton,N.Y.
• Merritt J. F., 1984. Winter ecology of small mammals. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication 10.
• Paine R. T., 1966. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am. Nat. 110, 65-75.
• Paine R. T., 1994. Marine rocky shores and community ecology: an experimentalist's perspective. Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe.
• Peters R. H., 1983. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Pucek Z., 1965. Seasonal and age changes in the weight of internal organ of shrews. Acta Theriologica 10, 369-438.
• Rosenzweig M. L., MacArthur R. H., 1963. Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Am. Nat. 47, 209-223.
• Schluter D., 2000. The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Tollrian R., Harvell, C. D. (red.), 1999. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• Werner E. E., Gilliam J. F., 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 15, 393-425.