DOCSLIB.ORG

Forests, Competition and Succession'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forests, Competition and Succession' Forests, Competition and Succession David A. Perry Oregon State University Competition Succession Competition, the struggle for limited resources, than would be possible if all were competing for and succession, the sequence of change in dominant the same set of resources. organisms following colonization, have long been This article first discusses competition: why it key concepts employed by ecologists to understand occurs, why it does not occur, and how it shapes and organize the patterns of nature. Although com- the structure of communities. It then turns to the petition and succession are distinct processes, they patterns and mechanisms of succession, many of are closely related for at least two reasons. First, which turn on the nature of both competitive and successional trajectories are largely driven by inter- cooperative interactions among species. actions among organisms, including (but not re- stricted to) competition. Second, both are inti- mately related to the degree of equilibrium or I. COMPETITION disequilibrium in ecosystems and landscapes. Ecol- ogists once believed that succession led inexorably "The inhabitants of the world at each suc- to a stable equilibrium within a given community cessive period in its history have beaten their of organisms, the composition of which was deter- predecessors in the race for life." (Charles mined in large part by who won the struggle for Darwin, "The Origin of Species," 1859) limited resources. Although that view has not been totally discarded, most ecologists now recognize One of the oldest ideas in ecology is that individ- that change is the rule rather than the exception in uals utilizing the same resource will compete if nature, with few if any ecological communities that resource is in short supply. For many years achieving a long-lasting equilibrium in species ecologists assumed that the sizes of all populations composition. Disturbances at many spatial and within a given community were ultimately limited temporal scales create "shifting mosaics" of com- by resources, hence competition was believed to munities in different stages of succession, resulting be an inevitable consequence of making a living in diverse niches that allow more species to coexist and the major determinant of community structure (i.e., the number of species and size of each popula- tion). Constant struggle is not necessarily implied; over many generations species may evolve ways Portions excerpted from D. A. Perry (1995). "Forest Ecosys- tems. - Copyright Johns Hopkins University Press, with per- to avoid competition through allocating resources. mission. Nevertheless, communities are ultimately struc- Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology Copyright © 1995 by Academic Press, Inc. Volume 2 135 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 136 FORESTS, COMPETITION AND SUCCESSION tured by competition, be it ongoing or, as a pop- alternates up the trophic ladder: plants compete; ular phrase puts it, the "ghost of competition herbivores are held down by predation, hence do past." not compete; and carnivores compete because they Although competition for resources undoubt- are at the top of the food chain and therefore have edly occurs (at least in some trophic levels), the no predators. Evidence in support of this idea is notion that it is the major organizing force in nature equivocal. However, there is little doubt that pre- is overly simplistic. Most ecologists now recognize dation, disturbance, or climatic fluctuations can and that ecological communities are complicated and frequently do act to maintain populations below variable, with their structure shaped by many inter- what their food supply would permit. This is often acting environmental and biotic factors in addition the case with herbivorous insects and its can also to resource competition. Species may not compete occur in plant communities when herbivores and for resources at all or they may simultaneously pathogens increase the species richness of plant compete and cooperate. For example, multispecies communities by reducing the ability of any one flocks of insectivorous birds commonly follow ant species to competitively dominate others. Higher swarms in the tropics, feeding on insects flushed order interactions other than predation may come by the ants. In 1983, F. Bourliere listed two possible into play to reduce competition. Such is the case advantages to such mixed flocking: more efficient with at least some types of mycorrhizal fungi, hunting in a patchy environment and more eyes which by mediating a more equitable distribution and ears for protection against predators. Different of resources among individual plants reduce the species of monkeys also frequently forage together, ability of one or more species to dominate a com- even when they are quite similar in body size and munity. diet. Once again, Bourliere (1983, p. 87): ". 2. Species may compete for the same resources the main advantage for mixed groups (of monkeys) but also benefit one another in some way that tends appears to be to make easier the location of patchily to dilute or negate their negative effects. This un- distributed food sources and the detection of preda- doubtedly occurs in ecosystems (as exemplified by tors. A monospecific group of similar size might the mixed foraging groups discussed earlier), but well offer the same benefits to its members, but at may not be readily apparent from casual observa- the cost of a stringent social hierarchy which would tion or even from experiments unless conducted imply a greater energy expenditure for its enforce- over many years (which seldom happens). It has ment." A. F. Hunter and L. W. Aarssen list the been hypothesized that plant species participate in following ways in which coexisting plant species defense guilds, i.e., either directly or indirectly re- have been demonstrated to help one another: ". duce herbivory and/or pathogenesis within the improving the soil or microclimate, providing community. For example, flowering plants are physical support, transferring nutrients, distracting common in young conifer forests, where they or deterring predators or parasites, reducing the probably compete with the conifers for various impact of other competitors, encouraging benefi- resources. However, nectar produced by flowers cial rhizosphere components or discouraging detri- of these plants is important in the diet of at least mental ones, and attracting pollinators or dispersal some insects that prey on defoliating insects. It has agents." [See F ORAGING STRATEGIES.] been documented that 148 species of parasitoids At least three things come into play to modify (important predators of defoliating insects) are as- the importance of competition within ecological sociated with flowering plants in forests of northern communities. Germany. What is the net effect of these plants on conifers? If they were not in the ecosystem would 1. Species within a given trophic level may be faster conifer growth eventually be negated by limited by factors other than resources, hence larger populations of defoliating insects made pos- seldom or never have to compete. It has been sible by lower populations of their predators? suggested that the importance of competition Questions such as these are seldom entertained in FORESTS, COMPETITION AND SUCCESSION 137 competition studies. Potentially competing species of the lifetime of a stand these may compete with have also been hypothesized to form cooperative conifers, but during wildfire they protect the coni- guilds based on protecting and stabilizing ecologi- fers. Species-diverse grasslands are more stable dur- cal commons such as shared mutualists (e.g., polli- ing a severe drought than species-simple grass- nators, mycorrhizal fungi) and soils. "Facilitation," lands. [See FIRE ECOLOGY. in which one plant species has some effect that Interactions among species requiring the same benefits others, is commonly observed during suc- resources are complex, varying over time and with cession. It does not follow that a "facilitator" does environmental conditions. In contrast, much of the not also compete for resources; however, the net traditional ecological thinking about the role of effect is positive rather than negative. On the other competition in structuring communities has been hand, there are clear instances in which one plant shaped by mathematical models that treat two in- species has a net negative effect on others, and other teracting species as if they were in a constant envi- cases in which the net effect of one species on an- ronment and isolated from other species in the sys- other varies with time and environment. These tem. L. Stone and A. Roberts developed a more points are followed in the section on succession. realistic model that evaluates the interactions be- 3. Complexity at scales ranging from landscapes tween any two species ". within the framework through individual trees to soil aggregates creates of the community to which they belong." Their diverse niches that allow species to avoid competi- approach, which they refer to as the "inverse tion through specializing. method," deals strictly with interactions within a given trophic level. In other words, these are inter- One of the primary criticisms leveled against the actions in which the participants potentially com- idea that communities are structured primarily by pete for resources. The criterion they use to deter- competition is that few experiments have really mine whether a species benefits or suffers in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Variety of Organisms in an Ecosystem Or Biome Climax Community
    Lessons for 5th Six Weeks (Weeks 4-6) 1) Copy the following vocabulary words onto a blank sheet of paper. Biodiversity – variety of organisms in an ecosystem or biome Climax community – dominant community of plants and animals that come to live in an area Ecological succession – the changing sequence of communities that live in an ecosystem during a given time period Limiting factor – a condition or resource that keeps a population at a certain size Microhabitat – a small or specialized habitat within a larger habitat Niche – the unique role or job of an organism in an ecosystem Pioneer species – first organisms to live in an area Primary succession – a process that develops a biotic community in a previously uninhabited and barren habitat with little or no soil Secondary succession – a process started by an event that reduces an already established ecosystem to a smaller population of species Sustainability – ability to maintain ecological processes over long periods of time; ability of an ecosystem to maintain its structure and function over time 2) Copy the following notes onto a blank sheet of paper. TEK 7.10A - Observe and describe how different environments, including microhabitats in schoolyards and biomes, support different varieties of organisms. Observe, Describe HOW DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS SUPPORT DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF ORGANISMS Including, but not limited to: • Different environments o Microhabitats in schoolyards o Biomes • Support different varieties of organisms through o Providing for basic needs . Possible examples may include: 7th Grade Science - Watson . Climate . Vegetation . Location . Water TEK 7.10B - Describe how biodiversity contributes to the sustainability of an ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants September 2008 Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L
    United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Fire in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Ecosystems General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42- volume 6 Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants September 2008 Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p. Abstract—This state-of-knowledge review of information on relationships between wildland fire and nonnative invasive plants can assist fire managers and other land managers concerned with prevention, detection, and eradi- cation or control of nonnative invasive plants. The 16 chapters in this volume synthesize ecological and botanical principles regarding relationships between wildland fire and nonnative invasive plants, identify the nonnative invasive species currently of greatest concern in major bioregions of the United States, and describe emerging fire-invasive issues in each bioregion and throughout the nation. This volume can help increase understanding of plant invasions and fire and can be used in fire management and ecosystem-based management planning. The volume’s first part summarizes fundamental concepts regarding fire effects on invasions by nonnative plants, effects of plant invasions on fuels and fire regimes, and use of fire to control plant invasions. The second part identifies the nonnative invasive species of greatest concern and synthesizes information on the three topics covered in part one for nonnative inva- sives in seven major bioregions of the United States: Northeast, Southeast, Central, Interior West, Southwest Coastal, Northwest Coastal (including Alaska), and Hawaiian Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 33 May 9 Species Interactions – Competition 2007
    Figure 49.14 upper left 7.014 Lecture 33 May 9 Species Interactions – Competition 2007 Consumptive competition occurs when organisms compete for the same resources. These trees are competing for nitrogen and other nutrients. Figure 49.14 upper right Figure 49.14 middle left Preemptive competition occurs when individuals occupy space and prevent access Overgrowth competition occurs when an organism grows over another, blocking to resources by other individuals. The space preempted by these barnacles is access to resources. This large fern has overgrown other individuals and is unavailable to competitors. shading them. 1 Figure 49.14 middle right Figure 49.14 lower left Chemical competition occurs when one species produces toxins that negatively Territorial competition occurs when mobile organisms protect a feeding or affect another. Note how few plants are growing under these Salvia shrubs. breeding territory. These red-winged blackbirds are displaying to each other at a territorial boundary. Figure 49.14 lower left The Fundamental Ecological Niche: “An n-dimensional hyper-volume every point on which a species can survive and reproduce indefinitely in the absence of other species” (Hutchinson) y t i d i m u h e iz tem s pe d Encounter competition occurs when organisms interfere directly with each other’s ra oo tur F access to specific resources. Here, spotted hyenas and vultures fight over a kill. e 2 The Realized Ecological Niche: the niche actually occupied in the presence of other species niche overlap leads to competition y t i d i
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Vegetation, Disturbance, Plant Succession, and Other Aspects of Forest Ecology
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Potential Vegetation, Disturbance, Pacific Northwest Plant Succession, and Other Aspects of Region Umatilla National Forest Ecology Forest F14-SO-TP-09-00 May 2000 David C. Powell The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and man- agement of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives – as directed by Congress – to provide increasingly greater service to a growing nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orienta- tion, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabili- ties who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio- tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720- 5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ii Potential Vegetation, Disturbance, Plant Succession, and Other Aspects of Forest Ecology David C. Powell U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Umatilla National Forest 2517 SW Hailey Avenue Pendleton, OR 97801 Technical Publication F14-SO-TP-09-00 May 2000 iii AUTHOR DAVID C.
    [Show full text]
  • Maximum Sustainable Yield from Interacting Fish Stocks in an Uncertain World: Two Policy Choices and Underlying Trade-Offs Arxiv
    Maximum sustainable yield from interacting fish stocks in an uncertain world: two policy choices and underlying trade-offs Adrian Farcas Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, United Kingdom [email protected] Axel G. Rossberg∗ Queen Mary University of London, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 327 Mile End Rd, London E1, United Kingdom and Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, United Kingdom [email protected] 26 May 2016 c Crown copyright Abstract The case of fisheries management illustrates how the inherent structural instability of ecosystems can have deep-running policy implications. We contrast ten types of management plans to achieve maximum sustainable yields (MSY) from multiple stocks and compare their effectiveness based on a management strategy evalua- tion (MSE) that uses complex food webs in its operating model. Plans that target specific stock sizes (BMSY) consistently led to higher yields than plans targeting spe- cific fishing pressures (FMSY). A new self-optimising control rule, introduced here arXiv:1412.0199v6 [q-bio.PE] 31 May 2016 for its robustness to structural instability, led to intermediate yields. Most plans outperformed single-species management plans with pressure targets set without considering multispecies interactions. However, more refined plans to \maximise the yield from each stock separately", in the sense of a Nash equilibrium, produced total yields comparable to plans aiming to maximise total harvested biomass, and were more robust to structural instability. Our analyses highlight trade-offs between yields, amenability to negotiations, pressures on biodiversity, and continuity with current approaches in the European context.
    [Show full text]
  • Stand Structure and Species Diversity Regulate Biomass Carbon Stock Under Major Central Himalayan Forest Types of India Siddhartha Kaushal and Ratul Baishya*
    Kaushal and Baishya Ecological Processes (2021) 10:14 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-021-00283-8 RESEARCH Open Access Stand structure and species diversity regulate biomass carbon stock under major Central Himalayan forest types of India Siddhartha Kaushal and Ratul Baishya* Abstract Background: Data on the impact of species diversity on biomass in the Central Himalayas, along with stand structural attributes is sparse and inconsistent. Moreover, few studies in the region have related population structure and the influence of large trees on biomass. Such data is crucial for maintaining Himalayan biodiversity and carbon stock. Therefore, we investigated these relationships in major Central Himalayan forest types using non- destructive methodologies to determine key factors and underlying mechanisms. Results: Tropical Shorea robusta dominant forest has the highest total biomass density (1280.79 Mg ha−1) and total carbon density (577.77 Mg C ha−1) along with the highest total species richness (21 species). The stem density ranged between 153 and 457 trees ha−1 with large trees (> 70 cm diameter) contributing 0–22%. Conifer dominant forest types had higher median diameter and Cedrus deodara forest had the highest growing stock (718.87 m3 ha−1); furthermore, C. deodara contributed maximally toward total carbon density (14.6%) among all the 53 species combined. Quercus semecarpifolia–Rhododendron arboreum association forest had the highest total basal area (94.75 m2 ha−1). We found large trees to contribute up to 65% of the growing stock. Nine percent of the species contributed more than 50% of the carbon stock. Species dominance regulated the growing stock significantly (R2 = 0.707, p < 0.001).
    [Show full text]
  • ZOOLOGY Principles of Ecology Community
    Paper : 12 Principles of Ecology Module : 20 Community: Community characteristics, types of biodiversity, diversity index, abundance, species richness, vertical and horizontal stratification: Part IV Development Team Principal Investigator: Prof. Neeta Sehgal Department of Zoology, University of Delhi Co-Principal Investigator: Prof. D.K. Singh Department of Zoology, University of Delhi Paper Coordinator: Prof. D.K. Singh Department of Zoology, University of Delhi Content Writer: Dr. Haren Ram Chiary and Dr. Kapinder Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi Content Reviewer: Prof. K.S. Rao Department of Botany, University of Delhi 1 Principles of Ecology ZOOLOGY Community: Community characteristics, types of biodiversity, diversity index, abundance, species richness, vertical and horizontal stratification: Part IV Description of Module Subject Name ZOOLOGY Paper Name Zool 12, Principles of Ecology Module Name/Title Community Module Id M20, Community characteristics, types of biodiversity, diversity index, abundance, species richness, vertical and horizontal stratification : Part-IV Keywords Succession, Primary succession, secondary succession, Sera, Climax community, Hydrosere, Lithosere, theories of climax community Contents 1. Learning Objective 2. Introduction 3. History of study of succession 4. Ecological succession and types: Primary and secondary succession 5. Stages of Primary and secondary succession 6. Process of succession in Hydrosere 7. Process of succession in Lithosere 8. Theories of climax community 9. Summary 2 Principles
    [Show full text]
  • How to Quantify Competitive Ability
    Received: 7 December 2017 | Accepted: 8 February 2018 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12954 ESSAY REVIEW How to quantify competitive ability Simon P. Hart1 | Robert P. Freckleton2 | Jonathan M. Levine1 1Institute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zürich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Abstract Zürich, Switzerland 1. Understanding the role of competition in structuring communities requires that we 2 Department of Animal and Plant quantify competitive ability in a way that permits us to predict the outcome of com- Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK petition over the long term. Given such a clear goal for a process that has been the focus of ecological research for decades, there is surprisingly little consensus on how Correspondence Simon P. Hart to measure competitive ability, with up to 50 different metrics currently proposed. Email: [email protected] 2. Using competitive population dynamics as a foundation, we define competitive Handling Editor: Hans de Kroon ability—the ability of one species to exclude another—using quantitative theoreti- cal models of population dynamics to isolate the key parameters that are known to predict competitive outcomes. 3. Based on the definition of competitive ability we identify the empirical require- ments and describe straightforward methods for quantifying competitive ability in future empirical studies. In doing so, our analysis also allows us to identify why many existing approaches to studying competition are unsuitable for quantifying competitive ability. 4. Synthesis. Competitive ability is precisely defined starting from models of com- petitive population dynamics. Quantifying competitive ability in a theoretically justified manner is straightforward using experimental designs readily applied to studies of competition in the laboratory and field.
    [Show full text]
  • Can More K-Selected Species Be Better Invaders?
    Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2007) 13, 535–543 Blackwell Publishing Ltd BIODIVERSITY Can more K-selected species be better RESEARCH invaders? A case study of fruit flies in La Réunion Pierre-François Duyck1*, Patrice David2 and Serge Quilici1 1UMR 53 Ӷ Peuplements Végétaux et ABSTRACT Bio-agresseurs en Milieu Tropical ӷ CIRAD Invasive species are often said to be r-selected. However, invaders must sometimes Pôle de Protection des Plantes (3P), 7 chemin de l’IRAT, 97410 St Pierre, La Réunion, France, compete with related resident species. In this case invaders should present combina- 2UMR 5175, CNRS Centre d’Ecologie tions of life-history traits that give them higher competitive ability than residents, Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), 1919 route de even at the expense of lower colonization ability. We test this prediction by compar- Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex, France ing life-history traits among four fruit fly species, one endemic and three successive invaders, in La Réunion Island. Recent invaders tend to produce fewer, but larger, juveniles, delay the onset but increase the duration of reproduction, survive longer, and senesce more slowly than earlier ones. These traits are associated with higher ranks in a competitive hierarchy established in a previous study. However, the endemic species, now nearly extinct in the island, is inferior to the other three with respect to both competition and colonization traits, violating the trade-off assumption. Our results overall suggest that the key traits for invasion in this system were those that *Correspondence: Pierre-François Duyck, favoured competition rather than colonization. CIRAD 3P, 7, chemin de l’IRAT, 97410, Keywords St Pierre, La Réunion Island, France.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 6 - Evolution Living Environment Answer Key to Practice Exam- Parts a and B-1
    Unit 6 - Evolution Living Environment Answer Key to Practice Exam- Parts A and B-1 Base your answers to questions 1 through 3 on the diagram below and on your knowledge of biology. The diagram represents a food web in an ecosystem. 1. If the population of hawks in this area increases, their prey populations might decrease. Later, with fewer prey, the hawk population might decrease. The prey populations might then increase. This is an example of A) an ecosystem that is completely out of balance B) how ecosystems maintain stability over time C) interaction between biotic and abiotic factors within an ecosystem D) ecological succession in an ecosystem 2. Missing from the diagram of this ecosystem are the A) biotic factors and decomposers B) abiotic factors and decomposers C) autotrophs, only D) heterotrophs, only 3. Which row in the chart below best identifies the relationships between the mice and the wheat? A) 1 B) 2 C) 3 D) 4 4. All of Earth's water, land, and atmosphere within 5. The study of the interactions between organisms and which life exists is known as their interrelationships with the physical environment is known as A) a population B) a community C) a biome D) the biosphere A) ecology B) cytology C) embryology D) physiology Page 1 Unit 6 - Evolution 6. The science of ecology is best defined as the study of 8. The graph below represents some changes in the number of individuals in a particular population in a A) the classification of plants and animals stable ecosystem over a period of time.
    [Show full text]
  • COULD R SELECTION ACCOUNT for the AFRICAN PERSONALITY and LIFE CYCLE?
    Person. individ.Diff. Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 665-675, 1993 0191-8869/93 S6.OOf0.00 Printedin Great Britain.All rightsreserved Copyright0 1993Pergamon Press Ltd COULD r SELECTION ACCOUNT FOR THE AFRICAN PERSONALITY AND LIFE CYCLE? EDWARD M. MILLER Department of Economics and Finance, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, U.S.A. (Received I7 November 1992; received for publication 27 April 1993) Summary-Rushton has shown that Negroids exhibit many characteristics that biologists argue result from r selection. However, the area of their origin, the African Savanna, while a highly variable environment, would not select for r characteristics. Savanna humans have not adopted the dispersal and colonization strategy to which r characteristics are suited. While r characteristics may be selected for when adult mortality is highly variable, biologists argue that where juvenile mortality is variable, K character- istics are selected for. Human variable birth rates are mathematically similar to variable juvenile birth rates. Food shortage caused by African drought induce competition, just as food shortages caused by high population. Both should select for K characteristics, which by definition contribute to success at competition. Occasional long term droughts are likely to select for long lives, late menopause, high paternal investment, high anxiety, and intelligence. These appear to be the opposite to Rushton’s r characteristics, and opposite to the traits he attributes to Negroids. Rushton (1985, 1987, 1988) has argued that Negroids (i.e. Negroes) were r selected. This idea has produced considerable scientific (Flynn, 1989; Leslie, 1990; Lynn, 1989; Roberts & Gabor, 1990; Silverman, 1990) and popular controversy (Gross, 1990; Pearson, 1991, Chapter 5), which Rushton (1989a, 1990, 1991) has responded to.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Is Behavioural Ecology Going?
    Opinion TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.21 No.7 July 2006 Where is behavioural ecology going? Ian P.F. Owens Division of Biology and NERC Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire, UK, SL5 7PY Since the 1990s, behavioural ecologists have largely wove together the theories developed over the preceding abandoned some traditional areas of interest, such as decade and championed a new empirical approach to optimal foraging, but many long-standing challenges investigating behaviour. The key element of this approach remain. Moreover, the core strengths of behavioural was the use of adaptation as the central conceptual ecology, including the use of simple adaptive models to framework, which gave behavioural ecologists a precise investigate complex biological phenomena, have now a priori expectation: behaviours should evolve to maxi- been applied to new puzzles outside behaviour. But this mise the fitness of the individuals showing strategy comes at a cost. Replication across studies is those behaviours. rare and there have been few tests of the underlying Krebs and Davies also stressed the importance of two genetic assumptions of adaptive models. Here, I attempt other principles [27]. The first was the need to quantify to identify the key outstanding questions in behavioural variation in behaviour accurately. Drawing attention to ecology and suggest that researchers must make the new quantitative work that was being performed in greater use of model organisms and evolutionary some areas of ethology [28,29], they showed how this genetics in order to make substantial progress on approach could be applied to a variety of behaviours.
    [Show full text]