sign in sign up
<<
Home , Extinction event, Holocene extinction

arXiv:q-bio/0607045v1 [q-bio.PE] 25 Jul 2006 t clgclnce uhstaini emdas termed is situation of Such capacity when carrying unpleasant niche. the quite ecological exceeds its be number may organism’s an on of fate of the [1]. hundred all in of extinct half be destruction will continue, Wilson of rates 2028). the current (by of if that years [3] thirty could estimated species within living extinct all of become percent twenty to up Probably, g.Teems xicin a aebe asdby caused volcanism, been changes, have climate may events, impact mass These ago. n lt etnc rtemxue l fte.Dur- them. of all mixtures the or ing tectonics plate and asetnto,kona the as known [1]. with , diameter mass collision in kilometers cosmic ten a of by comet or probably non-avian asteroid the caused an all of was end out it the and wiped at ago, period) years rapid most million and (65 famous ones extinction most land the mass were recent, of most ) 70% The and killed. and species marine , of (including 96% — history ∗ [email protected] ( ( 444 approximately were dovician [2] Sepkoski and Raup a in time. disappeared geological have of species his- period many the short which in relatively in extinctions life mass generation. of five new least tory a at create speci- been and have surviving be- reproduce There no therefore to which able Extinction after are event mens dies. extreme an species comes that of member n End URL: nteohrhn vnwtotetra tragedies external without even hand other the On pce becomes species A eaecretyi h al tgso human-caused a of stages early the in currently are We h lsia BgFv”ms xicin dnie by identified extinctions mass Five” “Big classical The n End http://home.agh.edu.pl/malarz/ ,37( 367 ), h iko xicin—temttoa etono h overp the or meltdown mutational the — extinction of risk The hmsMlhsage hti etunre- left if that argued Malthus Thomas . ewrs ot al iuain hs rniin agein transition, phase simulation, Carlo Monte 05.45.-a Keywords: 87.23.Cc, only and numbers: PACS avoided is the adults on extinction. responsible act is not factor Verhulst does the b may When phase overpopulation. extinction or The presented. are age) thresho reproduction rate)-(harmful ( rate), (birth 1 n 5( 65 and ) aut fPyisadApidCmue cec,AHUniver AGH , Computer Applied and Physics of Faculty h hs igassria-xicinfrtePnamodel Penna the for survival-extinction diagrams phase The aeDevonian Late .INTRODUCTION I. xicin h os nteEarth the in worst the — extinctions 2 nttt fTertclPyis nvriyo oon,D Cologne, of University Physics, Theoretical of Institute extinct n Cretaceous End ,25( 255 ), ooeeextinction hntels existing last the when l ikeiz 0 L309Krak´ow, Euroland PL-30059 30, Mickiewicza al. lcrncaddress: Electronic ; n Permian End ilo years million ) γ Dtd coe 3 2018) 23, October (Dated: ryburst -ray ryzo Malarz Krzysztof n Or- End event. over- ,200 ), apn o l niiul nagvnpplto we — population given a the in it that Sometimes individuals call modifica- individual. all the for genetic of happens many death evolu- genetic too and yield — sometimes tions creation harmful However, species as new tion. for regarded In crucial usually become procedure. — accepted may be selection mutations will natural way species the this created through newly the (called by and change 8]) This 7, change [6, another. slow to and in- species process of one mutation Darwinian modification via The genetic genome predicts dividuals positive. [5] probably theory is answer The tors? [1]. resources increase of to it lack mortality resources, the causes available since population of sharply, the amount sometimes the As decreases, exceeds species happening. a “moral this of through avoid control, to population restraint”, for starvation. and argued famine Malthus mass through population restrained popu- the pro- be linearly, point, He would that grow At to exponentially. [4]. tend the grows lation resources by land while supported agricultural that, be available posed to on large grown too food become un- grow would to they continue til would populations human stricted, hi eoye—the by — only genotype ge- represented their for individuals dynamics heterogeneous population netically single-species reproduce to o ieetseis,frec niiulo age of individual meanings each different for have species), may different and “season” for a measured as is time treated The variable genome. discrete the by are in mutations “1” bad as These represented genomes. gen- species several the heredi- over in erations accumulate random accu- mutations that by deleterious claims governed tary which be [11], to theory assumed mulation is fate population The ubro isstt n ntefirst the in one to set bits of number ol ouainbcm xic u ogntcfac- genetic to due extinct become population a Could h en oe fbooia gig[0 sdevoted is [10] ageing biological of model Penna The ,catastrophe g, d,(amu uainthreshold)-(minimal mutation (harmful ld), ,2, 1, o eoigol el onbbe and babies born newly only removing for asdb ihrmttoa meltdown mutational either by caused e ∗ ihprmtr:(uain rate)- (mutations parameters: with eei atr a edt species to lead may factors genetic uainlmeltdown mutational I H EN MODEL PENNA THE II. iyo cec n Technology, and Science of sity 593K¨oln, Euroland -50923 t nec iese wihmybe may (which step time each In . N bit ogbnr optrword. computer binary long opulation [9]. a oiin nthe in positions a the , 2 genome is calculated. These “1” in position 1 ≤ i ≤ a 6 5 (a) Nmax=10 , N0=3 10 , T=3, R=8, E=32, B=5 are treated as active mutations. If the number of active 1 mutations is greater or equal to the threshold value T an individual dies. 0.1 Individuals compete among themselves for resources 0.01 (for example food and territory): each of them may be re- moved from the population with probability N(t)/Nmax, 0.001 max where Nmax represents the maximal environmental ca- 1e-04 pacity and N is the current number of individuals. This N(t)/N m, b, M, phase 0.25, 0.75, 35, survival process is independent on individual age and health. The 1e-05 0.25, 0.75, 36, extinction term N(t)/Nmax is termed a Verhulst’s factor [12]. The 0.50, 0.50, 14, survival 1e-06 0.50, 0.50, 15, extinction Verhulst factor in natural way limits exponential explo- 1.00, 1.00, 9, survival sion of the to the infinity, to avoid the 1.00, 1.00, 10, extinction 1e-07 Malthus catastrophe. 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 The random removing of organisms due to their com- t peting for resources is not very well justified biologically: 6 5 we feel that the well-fitted individuals should be more (b) Nmax=10 , N0=3 10 , T=3, R=8, E=32, B=5, m=b=1. resistant for random removing — which mimics competi- 10 tion — that ill-fitted ones. Thus, to keep the population 1 finite and avoid accidentally killing the best-fitted organ- 0.1 isms, the Verhulst factor may act only on newly born babies and not on adult ones [13]. Here, however, the 0.01 max idea of massacre of the innocents — proposed by Herod 0.001 the Great [14] — is applied to one season old children and not to children who are two years old and under. N(t)/N 1e-04 The population reproduces asexually employing 1e-05 cloning mechanism. If the individual is older than a min- M, phase 1e-06 9, survival imum reproduction age R but before loosing its fertility 10, extinction — which happens at age E — it clones itself with proba- 1e-07 1 10 100 1000 10000 bility b producing B offspring. The cloning process is not t perfect: during replication parent’s genome is exposed to → harmful mutations (“0” “1”) which occur with proba- FIG. 1: A few examples of population size dynamics for dif- bility m at M randomly selected positions in genome. ferent mutation and birth rates (M, B) and probabilities (m, The length of genome Nbit restricts maximal age of indi- b). The subsequent pairs of curves have identical set of pa- viduals. rameters except of mutation rates which are M and M + 1. The extinction process within the frame of the Penna The Verhulst’s factor applies either to (a) all individuals or model was discussed rather seldom. In the literature (b) only to newly born babies. known to us only the papers by Maksymowicz et al [15], Bernardes [16], P´al [17] and Fehsenfeld et al [18] deal with species extinction. Some possible suggestions about mu- reproduce until their death (E = Nbit = 32). tational meltdown are also available in Refs. [19, 20, 21]. In Fig. 1 examples of the On the other hand the rapid survival rate decreases for N(t)/Nmax are presented. Subsequent pairs of curves semelparous organisms (like Pacific salmon [22]) or the correspond to sets of (m,b) parameters (0.25, 0.25), (0.5, influence of an overfishing on northern cod fish popula- 0.5) and (1, 1) from top to bottom, respectively. The rest tion [23] were one of the first applications of the Penna of parameters is fixed except the mutation rate M. For model [24]. fixed set of parameters (T , R, E, B, m, b) the time evolu- tion of population density differs qualitatively for muta- In this paper we would like to draw a phase diagrams tion rate M (survival) and M + 1 (extinction). Such and in the space of the Penna model [10] control parame- similar differences allow to construct phase diagrams pre- ters which for initially large populations separate survival sented in Figs. 2, 3 and 4. In Fig. 1(b) the Verhulst fac- from extinction. tor reduces only a birth probability b → b[1−N(t)/Nmax] and not the total number of individuals (see Fig. 1(a)). In Fig. 2 the phase diagrams survival-extinction for III. THE RESULTS various values mutation and birth rates (M, B) and prob- abilities (B, b) and for average numbers of mutations 5 We start our simulation with N0 = 3 · 10 individu- Mm and births Bb per “season” and per individual are als with perfect genomes (Nbit zeros) and with environ- presented. The phase transition border for average val- 6 mental capacity Nmax = 10 . We allow individuals to ues of number of mutations Mm and average number 3

6 5 6 5 (a) Nmax=10 , N0=3 10 , T=3, R=8, E=32 Nmax=10 , N0=3 10 , B=4, R=8, E=32, m=b=1. 60 50 m, b 0.50, 0.50 45 50 1.00, 1.00 0.25, 0.75 40 40 35 30

M 30 M 25 20 20 15 survival 10 10 0 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 B T

(b) N =106, N =3 105, T=3, R=8, E=32 max 0 FIG. 3: The phase diagram survival-extinction on (harmful 16 m, b mutation threshold T )-(mutation rate M) plane. 14 mutational meltdown 0.50, 0.50 1.00, 1.00 12 0.25, 0.75 10 of offsprings Bb shows some kind of scaling universality. 8 Obviously, the larger mutational rate is the higher is the Mm birth rate necessary to keep the population alive. On 6 survival overpopulation the other hand, the population size N(t) is restricted to 4 the environmental capacity Nmax of the niche where this population : too large fertility of individuals may 2 easily lead to species extinction due to overpopulation 0 [25]. The overpopulation effect may be avoided when 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Verhulst factor acts only on the newly born babies [13] Bb (see Fig. 2(c)). 6 5 (c) Nmax=10 , N0=3 10 , T=3, R=8, E=32, m=b=1. 16 In Fig. 3 the phase diagram survival-extinction for var- ious values mutation rates M and the critical mutations 14 mutational meltdown threshold T is presented. The mutational pressure shifts damaged genes (positions of “1” in genome) in that way 12 that only T − 1 mutations were located in the first R po- sitions of genome. This ensures chance of reproduction

M 10 for individuals [11]. The population is stable for T > R independent of mutation rate M (see Ref. [25]). For a 8 survival lower threshold T < R the critical mutation rate M exists above which the population dies out due to mutational 6 meltdown.

4 The phase diagram on the plane of minimal reproduc- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 tion age R versus harmful mutation threshold T seems B to show trivial behavior: when you allow individuals to reproduce immediately after they were born — the num- FIG. 2: The phase diagram survival-extinction for (a) various M B ber of individuals explode exponentially. When the pop- values of the mutation and birth rates ( , ) and probabil- ulation size crosses the border of environmental capac- ities (B, b) and (b) for average numbers of mutations Mm and births Bb per “season” and per individual. Below arc- ity Nmax the Verhulst’s factor will remove all individuals like lines the species survival is possible. At and above them due to overpopulation. On the other hand when you shift individuals die due to too many mutations pumped into their the minimal reproduction age R almost to infinity (which genome. On the right side of the vertical line the extinction here means Nbit) the extinction will occur (see Fig. 4) process is caused by overpopulation. (c) The latter may be as individuals will have no chance for reproduction. And avoided when Verhulst’s factor acts only on newly born ba- again: the overpopulation effect may be avoided when bies. one applies the Verhulst factor only on the infants. It seems that the transitions remain unchanged when the simulation time or the population size are enlarged. 4

6 5 be successfully reproduced [11]. (a) Nmax=10 , N0=3 10 , B=4, M=1, E=32, m=b=1. 40 Some trivial assumptions of the values of the Penna model parameters may lead to species extinction. For 35 mutational meltdown + no reproduction example, when one assumes individuals infertility (B = 30 b = 0) or one forgets to give individuals a chance for 25 reproduction (E < 1 or R>Nbit) the initial population, 20 survival even when huge, will die out. R 15 In this paper we show how the populations may be fragile when the main factor responsible for removing in- 10 dividuals is either too rapid growth of the population 5 (which results in exhausting resources necessary for life) 0 or genetic mutational meltdown of the population. In overpopulation -5 both cases the phase transition extinction-survival is ob- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 served. When the environmental capacity is finite — and T the Verhulst’s factor guards maximal environment capac- ity border — even without any errors in reproduction (no (b) N =106, N =3 105, B=4, M=1, E=32, m=b=1. max 0 mutations) the population may explode in one “season” 50 much over allowed the limit and die out due to starva- 45 tion. The effect of overpopulation may be removed when 40 mutational meltdown + no reproduction Verhulst factor kills only babies. On the other hand, for fixed average reproduction rate Bb the critical mutation 35 rate Mm may be found above which population cannot

R 30 have stable and non-zero size.

25 The latter means, that even without catastrophe in the cosmic scale the last examples of the endangered 20 survival species — for example the giant panda (Ailuropoda 15 melanoleuca), the red panda (Ailurus fulgens, better know as Firefox), Hickman’s potentilla (Potentilla hick- 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 manii), the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sir- T talis tetrataenia) [28] — may be finally removed from the Earth and meet the fate of phoenix, dragons, gargoyles FIG. 4: The phase diagram survival-extinction on (harmful and trolls. But simulated extinction of such small popu- mutation threshold T )-(minimal reproduction age R) plane lations was already investigated in details earlier [17]. for (a) Verhulst’s factor acting on all individuals and (b) only Last but not least: extinction not always must mean on newly born babies. In the latter case the overpopulation bad thing as the extinction of one species usually open is avoided. the free way for evolution of another one [6, 11]. The most famous mass extinction — which killed all dinosaurs 65 million years ago — perhaps was not very polite for IV. THE CONCLUSIONS these huge lizards (particularly from their point of view), but prepared place for a race to which author and anony- The subject of extinction is still attractive for scientists mous referee(s) of this paper belong to. (see Refs. [9, 26, 27] for the most recent papers in the field.) The influence of genetic factors on population extinc- tion was numerically investigated also earlier [8] for the Acknowledgments Eigen model [7] of evolution, where the population does not possess age structure. The Penna model with its set Author is grateful to Dietrich Stauffer for his hospi- of control parameters is very flexible and thus almost any tality in K¨oln and to Volker Jentsch of the Complexity of experimentally observed effect for real population may Centre at Bonn University for suggesting this work.

[1] http://www.wikipedia.org/ [5] Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, John Murray, London [2] Raup, D., Sepkoski, J., Science 215 (1982) 1501; ibid 231 (1859). (1986) 833. [6] Wu, C.-I., J. Evol. Biol. 14 (2001) 851; Stauffer, D., [3] Wilson, E.O., The Future of Life, Vintage, (2002). Kunwar, A., Chowdhury, D., Physica A352 (2005) 202; [4] Malthus, T.R., An Essay on the Principle of Population, Sitarz, M., Maksymowicz, A., Int. J. Mod. Phys. C16 (1798). (2005) 1917;Laszkiewicz, A., Szymczak, Sz., Cebrat, S., 5

ibid C14 (2003) 765. [15] Maksymowicz, A.Z., Bubak, M., Zaj¸ac, K., Magdo´n, M., [7] Eigen, M., Naturwissenschaften 58 (1971) 461; Eigen, Comput. Phys. Commun. 121 (1999) 693. M., Schuster, P., ibid 65 (1978) 7. [16] Bernardes, A.T., J. Phys. I5 (1995) 1501. [8] Bagnoli, F., Bezzi, M., Ann. Rev. Comp. Phys. VII [17] P´al, K.F., Int. J. Mod. Phys. C7 (1996) 899. (2000) 265; Baake, E., Gabriel, W., ibid VII (2000) 203; [18] Fehsenfeld, K.M., Dickman, R., Bernardes, A.T., Phys. Bagnoli, F., Bezzi, M., Int. J. Mod. Phys. C9 (1998) 999; Rev. E67 (2003) 031915. Bagnoli, F., Bezzi, M., ibid C9 (1998) 555; Malarz, K., [19] Malarz, K., Int. J. Mod. Phys. C11 (2000) 309. Tiggemann, D., ibid C9 (1998) 481. [20] Malarz, K., Sitarz, M., Gronek, P., Dydejczyk, A., Lect. [9] Rowe, G., Beebee, T.J.C., Evolution 57 (2003) 177; Zeyl, Notes Comp. Sci. 3037 (2004) 638. C., Mizesko, M., De Visser, J.A.G.M., ibid 55 (2001) [21]Laszkiewicz, A., Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Wroc law, (2006). 909; Lynch, M., Conery, J., Burger, R., ibid 49 (1995) [22] Penna, T.J.P., Moss de Oliveira, S., Stauffer, D., Phys. 1067; Gabriel, W., Lynch, M., Burger, R., ibid 47 (1993) Rev. E52 R3309. 1744; Lynch, M., Burger, R., Butcher, D., Gabriel, W., [23] Moss de Oliveira, S., Penna, T.J.P., Stauffer, D., Physica J. Heredity 84 (1993) 339. A215 (1995) 298. [10] Penna, T.J.P., J. Stat. Phys. 78 (1995) 1629. [24] Moss de Oliveira, S., de Oliveira, P.M.C., Stauffer, [11] Stauffer, D., Moss de Oliveira, S., de Oliveira, P.M.C., D., Evolution, Money, War and Computers, Teubner, S´aMatins, J.S., , Sociology, Geology by Compu- Stuttgart-Leipzig, (1999). tational Physicists, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006). [25] Bernardes, A.T., Moreira, J.G., Castro e Silva, A., Eur. [12] Verhulst, P.F., Correspondance math´ematique et Phys. J. B1 (1998) 393. physique 10 (1838) 113. [26] Roopnarine, P.D., 32 (2006) 1. [13] Makowiec, D., Acta Phys. Pol. B31 (2000) 1037; [27] Pimentel, D., Cincotta, R.P., Longman, P., Oglethorpe, Niewczas, E., Cebrat, S., Stauffer, D., Theory Biosci. J., Gelman, N., Lutz, W., Bilsborrow, R.E., Frontiers 119 (2000) 122; S´aMartins, J.S., Cebrat, S., ibid 119 Ecology Environment 4 (2006) 155. (2000) 156. [28] http://www.iucnredlist.org/ [14] Matthew 2:16.