![]() ![]() Previous attempts to reduce model complexity have used a separation between ecological and evolutionary timescales, assuming either that evolutionary dynamics are much slower than ecological dynamics 23, or the reverse, that evolutionary dynamics are more rapid 17, 21. As such models are not analytically tractable, study is generally limited to numerical simulations, which to some extent form a black box yielding results that are difficult to disentangle and interpret. The main challenge in developing a comprehensive theory lies in the complexity of model dynamics, with ecological and evolutionary changes on two trophic levels all interacting simultaneously. In absence of comprehensive empirical evidence, a predictive theory of how coevolution affects predator-prey dynamics is still missing. Moreover, predictions on when any of these dynamics should be found are contradictory: for example, antiphase cycles could only occur when predator adaptation was slow compared to ecological dynamics 22, or slower than prey adaptation 18, while they were found for extremely fast predator adaptation in others 20, 21. Modelling studies on coevolution revealed a wide range of possible predator-prey dynamics these include the antiphase cycles found in models on prey evolution 18, 19, but also in-phase or reversed cycles 18, 19, 20, 21. In strong contrast with studies on prey evolution alone, the impact of predator-prey coevolution on predator-prey dynamics remains poorly understood. Theoretical study has demonstrated that antiphase cycles are expected when defense is highly effective 16, 17. For example, rapid prey evolution may result in antiphase cycles 10, 14, where the predator lags behind the prey with half the period, rather than the ¼-lag cycles predicted by non-evolutionary models 15. Rapid evolution of prey defense in response to changes in predator abundance may stabilize or destabilize dynamics 13, or qualitatively change the shape of predator-prey cycles 10, 12. A striking number of examples have been found in traits directly involved in predation 6, 7, 8, 9 and defense against predators 9, 10, 11, 12, indicating contemporary evolution is common in predator-prey interactions, with potentially dramatic impacts on predator-prey dynamics. Similar content being viewed by othersĮvolutionary change can occur on ecological timescales 1, 2, 3, resulting in the complex feedbacks of eco-evolutionary dynamics 4, 5. The successful application of our proposed approach provides an important step towards a comprehensive theory on eco-evolutionary feedbacks in predator-prey systems. ![]() We further show when and how prey biomass and trait dynamics become synchronized, resulting in antiphase cycles, allowing us to explain and reconcile previous modelling and empirical predictions. Our analysis reveals how the predator-prey phase relationship is driven by the temporal synchronization between prey biomass and defense dynamics. ![]() We apply this approach to a co-evolutionary predator-prey model to disentangle the processes leading to either antiphase or ¼-lag cycles. ![]() We develop a new approach here, based on the Geber method for deconstructing eco-evolutionary dynamics, for gaining such understanding. Interpreting and reconciling these contradictions has been challenging due to the inherent complexity of model dynamics, defying mathematical analysis and mechanistic understanding. The impact of rapid predator-prey coevolution on predator-prey dynamics remains poorly understood, as previous modelling studies have given rise to contradictory conclusions and predictions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |