quantitative biology: populations [email protected]

83
Quantitative Biology: populations [email protected]. uk

Upload: arnold-patterson

Post on 16-Dec-2015

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Quantitative Biology: populations

[email protected]

Page 2: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Lecture 1. Basic Concepts & Simplest Models

• Definitions• Basic population dynamics

– immigration-death• discrete & continuous

– birth-death• discrete

– logistic equation• discrete & continuous

• Multiple species: competition and predation

Page 3: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Definitions

• Population– a “closed” group of individuals of same spp.– immigration and emigration rates zero

• Metapopulation– a collection of populations for which the migration

rates between them is defined• Community

– a closed group of co-existing species

Page 4: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Fundamental Equation

• Populations change due to– immigration, emigration

• additive rates; usually assumed independent of population size

– birth, death• multiplicative rates; usually dependent on

population size

tttttt EdNIbNNN 1

Page 5: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Immigration-Death (Discrete)

• Time “jumps” or steps– N is not defined between steps

• Immigration & death rates constant• Death rate is a proportion

– the proportion surviving is (1- )– limits: 0 1

ˆ1ˆˆˆ1 tttt NNNN

Page 6: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Immigration-Death (Continuous)

Ndt

dN

• Re-expressed in continuous time– N defined for all times

• Death rate is a per capita rate– the proportion surviving a period of time, T, is

exp(-T)– limits: 0

Page 7: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Immigration-Death Solution

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

N

Total Original Immigrants

Page 8: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

I-D Equilibrium• When dN/dt = 0

– population rate of change is zero– immigration rate = (population) death rate

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50

Population

Rat

es

Immigration Death Equilibrium

Page 9: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Characteristic Timescales

• Life expectancy, L, determines the timescale over which a population changes (especially recovery from perturbations)

• L is reciprocal of death rate (in continuous models)

• In immigration-death model increasing death rate (decreasing life expectancy) speeds progress (decreases time) to equilibrium

Page 10: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Immigration-death model with different L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

N

L = 2.00 L = 1.00 L = 0.50

Page 11: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Simplest Discrete Birth-Death Model

• R is the reproductive rate– the (average) number of offspring left in the

next generation by each individual• Gives a difference equation

– check with fundamental equation• Population grows indefinitely if R>1

tt NRN 1

Page 12: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Birth-Death Continuous

• r is the difference between birth and death rates– R = er ; r = ln(R)

• If r > 0, exponential growth, if r < 1 exponential decay

rtt eNNNrN 0

Page 13: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Density Dependence: necessity

• To survive, in ideal conditions, birth rates must be bigger than death rates– ALL populations grow exponentially in ideal

circumstances• Not all biological populations are growing

exponentially– ALL populations are constrained (birth death)– Density dependence vs. external fluctuations

• Stable equilibria suggest that density dependence is a fundamental property of populations

Page 14: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Factors & Processes• Density Independence Factors

– act on population processes independently of population density• Limiting Factors

– act to determine population size; maybe density dependent or independent• Regulatory Factors

– act to bring populations towards an equilibrium. The factor acts on a wide range of starting densities and brings them to a much narrower range of final densities.

• Density Dependence Factors– act on population processes according to the density of the population– only density dependent factors can be regulatory

• Factors act through processes to produce effects (eg: drought-starvation-mortality)

Page 15: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Density Dependent Factors

• Mechanisms– competition for resources (intra- and interspecific)– predators & parasites (disease)

• Optimum evolutionary choices for individuals (e.g. group living, territoriality) may regulate population

Page 16: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Logistic - Observations

• Populations are roughly constant– K - “carrying capacity”– determined by species / environment combination– density dependent factors

• Populations grow exponentially when unconstrained– r - intrinsic rate of population change– i.e. before density dependent factors begin to operate

• r and K are independent

Page 17: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Logistic Equation - Empirical

• Empirical observations combined• Fits many, many data

treNNK

KtN

NK

rrN

K

NrN

N

NKrNN

0

0

2

1

)(

1

Page 18: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Logistic Equation - Mechanistic

• Linear decrease in per capita birth rate• Linear increase in per capita death rate N10

N10

11

0000

21100

1010

;

Kr

NN

NNNN

dbN

Page 19: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Stability of Logistic

• Linear birth and death rates (as functions of N) give a single equilibrium pointN = K

• Equilibrium is globally, stable

Page 20: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Logistic Equation - Dynamics

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

N

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

N

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

N

Page 21: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Logistic Equation Properties 0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

Rat

e o

f C

han

ge

of

N

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time

per

cap

ita

Rat

e o

f C

han

ge

of

N

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

N

Rat

e o

f C

han

ge

of

N

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 5 10 15 20 25

N

per

cap

ita

Rat

e o

f C

han

ge

of

N

Page 22: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Logistic Equation (Discrete)

• Explicit equilibrium, K• Derivation is by considering the relative growth rate

from its maximum (1/R) to its minimum (1)• The growth rate (R) decreases as population size

increases

t

t

t

tt aN

RN

KNR

RNN

1)1(

11

Page 23: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time

N Birth-Death

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time

N

Page 24: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Summary• Timescales

• the “system” (population) timescale is determined by the life expectancy of the individuals within the population

• Density dependence– Birth and death are universal for biological

populations– The direct implication is that populations are

regulated

Page 25: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Multi-population Dynamics • Two Species

– Competition (-/-)• intraspecific• interspecific

– Predation (+/-)• patchiness• prey population limitation• multiple equilibria

• Multi-species

Page 26: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Intraspecific Competition

• Availability of a resource is limited • Has a reciprocal effect (i.e. all individuals affected)• Reduces recruitment / fitness• Consequently produces density dependence• Important in generation of skewed distribution of

individual quality– Different individuals react differently to competition =

creates heterogeneity

• Inverse dd (co-operation)– Allee Effect

Page 27: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Interspecific Competition• Competition for shared resource

– results in exclusion or coexistence• which depends on degree of overlap for resource and degree

of intraspecific competition

• Aggregation & spatial effects– disturbance

• kills better competitor leaving gaps for better colonisers (r- & K- species)

– aggregation enhances coexistence• “empty” patches allow the worse competitor some space

Page 28: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Interspp Competition Dynamics

• Lotka-Volterra model– Structure– Statics

• What are the equilibria

– Dynamics• What happens over time

– Phase planes• isoclines

Page 29: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Lotka-Volterra Equations

• Based on logistic equations– One for each species– 21 represents the effect of an individual of species 2 on species 1

– i.e. if 21 = 0.5 then sp. 2 are ½ as competitive, i.e. at individual level interspecific competition is greater than intraspecific competition

1

2211111

1

K

NNKNr

dt

dN

Page 30: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Analysis

• Equilibrium points are given when the differential equation is zero– A single point (trivial equilibrium) and isocline– The line along which N1 doesn’t change

2211122111

1

1

2211111

0

0

0

NKNNNK

N

K

NNKNr

Page 31: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Phase Planes

• Variables plot against each other• Isoclines• Direction of change (zero on isocline)

– For spp. 1 these are horizontal toward isocline– For spp. 2 these are vertical toward isocline

• Combine two isoclines and directions on single figure…

Page 32: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Outcomes

K2 > K1/12

Spp 2 is more competitive at high densities

K2 < K1/12

Spp 2 is less competitive at high densities

K1 > K2/21

Spp 1 is more competitive at high densities

Exclusion(initial condition

dependent)Spp 1 wins

K1 < K2/21

Spp 1 is less competitive at high densities

Spp 2 wins Co-existence

Page 33: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Dynamics

• Exclusion or co-existence is not dependent on r– but dynamic approach to equilibrium is

Page 34: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Time

N

r=0.1 r=0.28 r=0.46

r=0.64 r=0.82 SB:r=0.1

Page 35: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Predation

• Consumers– inc. parasites, herbivores, “true predators”

• predator numbers influenced by prey density which is influenced by predator numbers– circular causality: limit cycles in simple models

• time delay – in respect of predator population’s ability to grow, r

• over-compensation– predators effect on prey is drastic

Page 36: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Predation Dynamics• Limit cycles rarely seen• heterogeneity in predation

– patchiness of prey densities• reduced density in prey population

– effect ameliorated by reduction in competition (i.e. compensation)

• increased density in prey population– effect ameliorated by increase in competition

(i.e. compensation)

Page 37: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Refuges• Prey aggregated into patches• Predators aggregate in prey-dense patches• Effect on prey population

– prey in less dense patches are most commonly in a partial refuge

– they are less likely to be predated

• Effect is to stabilise dynamics

Page 38: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Summary

• Individuals interact with each other– and compete

• Each individual is affected by the population(s) and each population(s) is affect by the individual– Population dynamics are reciprocal– and reciprocal across level

• Co-existence is sometimes hard to reproduce in models– How rare is it?

• Heterogeneity (e.g. patches) tends to enhance co-existence

Page 39: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Lecture 2: Structuring Populations

• Age– Leslie matrices

• Metapopulations– Probability distributions

• Metapopulations– Levin’s model

Page 40: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Types of Structuring• Individuals in a population are not identical

– heterogeneity in different traits• trait constant (throughout life)

– DNA (with exceptions? e.g. somatic evolution)– gender (with exceptions)

• trait variable– stage of development, age, infection status,

pregnancy, weight, position in dominance hierarchy, etc

Page 41: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Rate of Change of Structure

• If trait constant for an individual throughout life, then it varies in the population on time scale of L– e.g. evolutionary time scale; sex ratios

• If trait variable for an individual, then varies on its own time scale– infection status varies on a time-scale of

duration of infectiousness– fat content varies according to energy balance

Page 42: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Modelling Stages (Discrete)

• Discrete time model for non-reversible development– at each time step a proportion in each stage

• die (a proportion s survives)• move to next stage (a proportion m)

– a number are born, B– complication: s-m

taxtyyty

xxtxtxxtxxtx

NmNsN

BmsNBNmNsN

,,1,

,,,1,

Page 43: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

• easiest to chose a time step (which might be e.g. temperature dependent) or stage structure (if not forced by biology) for which all individuals move up

tyytz

txxty

tx

NsN

NsN

BN

,1,

,1,

1,

Page 44: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Leslie Matrix

• This difference equation can be written in matrix notation

tt MNN 1

zy

x

zyx

tz

ty

tx

t

ss

s

bbb

N

N

N

0

00;

,

,

,

MN

Page 45: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Properties of Matrix Model• No density dependence or limitation

– as discrete birth-death process, the population grows or declines exponentially

• The equivalent value to R is the “dominant eigenvalue” of M– associated “eigenvector” is the stable age distribution

• If the population grows, there is a stable age distribution– after transients have died away

• Density dependence can be introduced– but messy

Page 46: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Leslie Matrix Example

• This matrix has a dominant eigenvalue of 2 and a stable age structure [ 24 4 1 ]

• i.e. when the population is at this stable age structure it doubles every time step

0210

0031

1290

M

Page 47: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Spatial Structure

• Many resources are required for life– e.g. plants are thought to have 20-30 resources

• light, heat, inorganic molecules (inc. H2O) etc.

• Habitats are defined in multi-dimensional space– “niche” is area of suitability in multidimensional space– Areas of differing suitability

• Disturbance– No habitat will exist forever– Frequency, duration and lethality– Dispersal is a universal phenomena

Page 48: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Metapopulations

• A collection of connected single populations– whether a single population with heterogeneous

resources or metapopulation depends on dispersal• if dispersal is low, then metapopulation• degree of genetic mixing• human populations from metapopulation to single

population?

• Depends on tempo-spatial habitat distribution & dispersal

Page 49: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Levins Model

• Ignore “local” (within patch) dynamics– single populations are either at N=0 or N=K

population size– equilibrium points of logistic equation, ignore

dynamics between these points (i.e. r)

KNorNN

K

NrNN

00

1

Page 50: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

• Let p be the proportion of patches occupied (i.e. where N=K)– (1-p) is proportion of empty patches– a is rate of extinction (per patch)– m is per patch rate of establishment in empty

patch and depends on proportion of patches filled (dispersal)

appmpdt

dp

rateextinctionrateoncolonizatidt

dp

)1(

Page 51: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Model Results

• Equilibrium only for m > a– i.e. metapopulation can only exist if local

establishment is greater than local extinction• Dynamics similar to logistic equation

mapappmp 1)1(

Page 52: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p

ap mp(1-p)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p

a m(1-p)

Page 53: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Extinction Rates• Stochastic probability of extinction

– disturbance (not related to population size)– demographic (related to population size - the

smaller the population the greater the risk of extinction)

• Appears to decrease with increasing p• Dispersal occurs all the time, tending to

increase small populations

Page 54: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Model with Decreasing Extinction

• Include dependence of local extinction on total patch occupancy

• Exponential assumption gives implicit equilibrium result with two possibilities

01lnln

)1(

)1(

10

0

0

1

1

papa

m

eapm

epapmpppa

pa

Page 55: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p

tota

l rat

es

a0 p e{-a1 p} mp(1-p)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p

per

pat

ch r

ates

a0 e{-a1 p} m(1-p)

Page 56: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p

tota

l rat

es

a0 p e{-a1 p} mp(1-p)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

p

per

pat

ch r

ates

a0 e{-a1 p} m(1-p)

Page 57: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

dt

dp

p*p

Decreasing probability of extinction with increasing proportion of patchesoccupied is an example of positive density-dependence. The effect here isto create a threshold proportion of patches that need to be occupied toavoid metapopulation extinction.

If the metapopulation level effect is due to negative per patch rate ofchange of patch occupancy at low p, then this is called a metapopulation‘Allee effect’ (Amarasekare 1998. Allee effects in metapopulation dynamics.American Naturalist. 152). Just as the Levin’s model can be thought of asanalogous to the logistic model of population growth rate, if the per capitapopulation growth rate becomes negative at small population size, thiscreates a threshold population size, below which extinction results– a phenomenon known as the Allee effect (Stephens et al. 1999. What isthe Allee effect? Oikos. 87, 185-190).

Page 58: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Patches as “Networks”

• Simplest models have all patches equally connected

• But patches may be connected as networks, for example:

Page 59: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Networks in Matrix Format

• This can be written as a matrix of (direct) connections:

0000

1000

0100

0010

C

Page 60: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Structure of Connections

• Multiplying this matrix together once gives the patches connected by two steps etc:

0000

0000

0000

1000

;

0000

0000

1000

0100

32 CC

Page 61: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Summary

• Heterogeneity between individuals is what biology is about– Extends to heterogeneity between populations

• Nothing is the same and doesn’t stay the same– We haven’t touched on evolution

• Dispersal is universal and leads to metapopulations

Page 62: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Lecture 3. Small Populations

• Stochastic effects– demographic & environmental– demographic stochasticity in small populations– stochastic modelling

• e.g. death process; immigration-death process• Monte Carlo simulation

• Probabilities of extinction

Page 63: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Stochasticity• Deterministic models

– give expected (average) outcome (in most cases)

• Demographic– individuals come in single units– e.g. if deterministic model predicts 5.6 individuals, at

the limit of accuracy the number can only 5 or 6

• Environmental– environments (resource availability) fluctuates

“randomly”– chance events (c.f. disturbance)

Page 64: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Demographic Stochasticity• More predominant in small populations

– relative error is greater (c.f. plotting on log scale)

• Gender problems– if a population of 10 individuals produces 15 offspring,

there is a 15% chance of 5 or less females

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Page 65: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Pure Death Process

• Deterministic model– negative exponential decay: N(t)=N(0)exp(-t)

• Stochastic model– exp(-t) is the probability of an individual

surviving to t – if individual survival is independent, then the

numbers surviving to t have a binomial distribution with mean N(0)exp(-t)

Page 66: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Immigration-Death Process

• Solution is sum of two populations• Immigration process is a Poisson process

– Poisson distribution for numbers immigrating in a given time

• Death process– binomial distribution for numbers surviving to

given time

Page 67: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Stochastic Population Processes

Process Popn. Distribution

Death Binomial

Immigration-Death Poisson

Birth-Death Negative Binomial

Imm.-Birth-Death Negative Binomial

“Logistic” “normal”

Page 68: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Monte Carlo Simulation

• More complex models require computer simulation to find solutions

• Collection of Poisson processes (i.e. assume independence between different processes)

• Process rates change with time

Page 69: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Monte Carlo Example• Immigration-death process• Process rates

– immigration: – death: N– total: T = + N

• Time to next event– from negative exponential distribution with

rate parameter T

T

psep Ts )ln(

;

Page 70: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Monte Carlo Iteration

• Calculate time to next event• Calculate which event has occurred

– /T is probability of immigration– N/T is probability of death

• Change population• Calculate T

Page 71: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Birth-Death Simulation

• Deterministic result is the mean of many stochastic results– not true for every model

• Individual simulations do not “look like” the mean– interpreting data

Page 72: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Random Walks

• Alternative view of stochastic models• Population size is performing a “random walk”

through time• Zero is an “adsorbing barrier” (extinction)

– Or 1 if dioecious• All populations (which have a death process)

have a non-zero probability of reaching zero

Page 73: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Time to Extinction• Death Process

– mean time to extinction is :• Birth-Death Process

– for b < d and N0 = 1 :

– depends on the absolute value of b & d (not just difference, r, as deterministic mean)

– faster reproducing spp. (big b) have longer times to extinction

0ln1

Nd

TE

d

b

bTE 1ln

1

Page 74: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Probability of Extinction

• Assured in pure death process• Birth-Death Process

– prob. of extinction by time t :

– N0 lines of descent have to become extinct

– prob. of ever extinction (b>d):

– ultimate extinction is increasingly unlikely as N0 increases

0

exp

exp)(

N

E rtdb

rtddtp

0

)(N

E b

dp

Page 75: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

1 3 5 7 9

2.1

5.11E-14

1E-12

1E-10

1E-08

1E-06

1E-04

0.01

1

Prob. Ext.

N0

Birth Rate

Page 76: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Effect of Increasing Rates

• Increasing birth rates increases variability• Increasing death rates decreases variability• In extinction probabilities, increasing variation

increases extinction probabilities– Thus, for the same expected growth rate (r and R),

increasing birth rates (and increasing death rates) increases chance of eventually reaching absorbing barrier

Page 77: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Logistic Results

• Extinction is certain• Time to extinction

– with N0 = 1 :

– ln(TE) is a measure of stability of a population

KTrK

eT E

K

E ln;

Page 78: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

10

50

90

110000

1E+101E+151E+20

1E+25

1E+30

1E+35

1E+40

1E+45

Te

r

K

Page 79: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Summary

• Dynamics and heterogeneity have a reciprocal effect on each other– Dynamics creates variability– Variability influences dynamics

• The mean is not always informative– The average human being…

• Studying variability (and the dynamics of variability) is usually more informative than studying the mean (and the dynamics of the mean)

Page 80: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Extinction Summary• Probability of extinction is less likely

– the greater the population size• each line of descent has to become extinct

– the carrying capacity is large• the random walk is further from the absorbing boundary

– the greater birth rates are compared to death rates• i.e. the larger the value of r

– the smaller the variation in population size• the smaller the birth rates, but see above

• Explains why the majority of populations of conservation concern tend to be large mammals in small habitats

Page 81: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Lecture 4. Modelling

Page 82: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Why prediction fails• Models are necessarily under-specified

– They have to be to be useful• The correspondence of the causal relationships they embody to actual

phenomena is never known to be perfect• The observable initial conditions are never perfectly observed• There are always unobservable initial conditions.

– What if a big asteroid hits? That might be predictable in the sense that the asteroid is already on its collision course with the Earth, but from a practical viewpoint it may be unobservable

• Parameters are estimates• Some processes are chaotic, such that arbitrarily small errors will

cumulate to arbitrarily large deviations from prediction

Page 83: Quantitative Biology: populations graham.medley@warwick.ac.uk

Principles• Exponential growth• Density Dependence

– positive• cooperation; aggregation; Allee effect

– negative• necessary but not sufficient for stability

• Circular Causality– pathways created by interaction with environment (inc. other species)– low frequency cycles / oscillations– time delays

• Limiting Factors– populations exist in complex webs of interaction, but only a few are

important at particular times / places