|
One individual is harmed, the other is unaffected.
|
|
|
Neither organism is harmed or benefits from interaction. |
|
|
Both organisms are harmed. |
|
|
One organism benefits, the other is harmed. |
|
|
One organism benefits, the other is unaffected. |
|
|
|
|
Coined the word niche; an organism’s habitat. |
|
|
Redefined niche; an organism’s role in the environment. |
|
|
Redefined niche; all physical and biological variables that affect organisms. Coined the term hypervolume. |
|
|
Conditions under which an organism can theoretically survive. |
|
|
Conditions where an organism actually does live.
|
|
|
Exploitative; siblicide in raptors and egrets. |
|
|
Interference; territoriality in songbirds. |
|
Intraspecific Competition |
|
Between individuals of the same species (males vs. females, adults vs. young, etc.).
|
|
|
Influence increases with increasing population density (disease). |
|
|
One individual loses more than the other (most common in interspecific competition). |
|
|
|
|
Natural selection favors changes that lessen competition. |
|
Methods of Reducing Intraspecific Competition |
|
Territoriality (birds), prolonged breeding season (frogs), dispersal of male or female offspring (cheetahs, African wild dogs). |
|
|
Unchecked growth (humans, theoretical growth without environmental restrictions). |
|
|
Exponential growth limited by carrying capacity (most organisms).
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Premium Partner From $18.00 per page
Recommended Service From $13.90 per page
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team
Also known as sygmoidal growth. |
|
|
Number of individuals capable of being supported by the environment. |
|
Interspecific Competition |
|
Between individuals of different species. |
|
|
If resource requirements between individuals are similar, extinction or range shift occurs.
|
|
|
Using different resources, in different areas, or at different times. |
|
|
One species takes over entire ecosystem. |
|
|
Competing species are removed from an area, eliminating competition. |
|
|
Kill and eat another organism.
|
|
|
Lay eggs on/in host, offspring consume host (Hymenoptera, Diptera). Sex of eggs can be controlled by parent. |
|
|
Predators that take nutrients from another organism. Usually live in several hosts throughout life, shouldn’t kill host.
|
|
|
Consume (but usually do not kill) vegetation. |
|
Predator-Prey Relationships |
|
Late 1800’s – focus on pest control, continued later as theoretical interest. |
|
|
Search, pursuit, handling times. |
|
|
Fur trading company that recorded lynx/hare populations around Hudson’s Bay. Discovered population cycles (oscillations). |
|
|
Studied effect of refuges, immigration, and emigration on predator prey relationships in microorganisms. |
|
|
Studied effect of environmental complexity on predator-prey oscillations using mites and oranges. |
|
Lotka and Volterra (1929) |
|
Created equations to explain predator-prey oscillations. |
|
Type I Functional Response |
|
Proportion of prey consumed remains constant with increase in prey population. |
|
Type II Functional Response |
|
Proportion of prey consumed drops with increase in prey population. |
|
Type III Functional Response |
|
Proportion of prey consumed increases with increase in prey population, until a limit is reached and the proportion of prey consumed decreases. |
|
|
Ability to locate prey easily after a few trials. |
|
|
Eating at different prey densities. |
|
|
Breeding at different prey densities. |
|
|
Feeding as efficiently as possible given other constraints (what to eat and where to eat). |
|
|
Long search time, lots of calories. |
|
|
Short search time, less calories. |
|
|
Predator decides what to eat. |
|
|
Predator decides where to eat. |
|
|
Minimizes time used to find food (hummingbird). |
|
|
Consumes as many calories as possible with no time constraints. |
|