Skip to main content
Log in

Combining niche and game theories to address interspecific cooperation in ecological communities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Community Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Incorporating cooperative interspecific interactions into the classical Niche Theory has been identified as a big challenge of population and community ecology. Attempting to fill this gap I present the Lotka-Volterra Niche Game Model (LVNGM), resulting from the marriage between the classical Niche Theory and Game Theory. I use this new framework to analyze the effects of including cooperative interspecific interactions on two global properties of a community, its aggregate biomass or total yield and its biodiversity, measured by the Shannon equitability. I consider different dilemma games, games for which neither pure competition nor pure cooperation are dominant/optimal strategies, which are popular in biology: the Prisoner's Dilemma (PD), the Snowdrift (SD) and the Stag-Hunt (SH) games. The main result is that these games lead to a higher total yield—which is maximum for the SD, followed by the PD and the SH in third place—and, generally, to a higher biodiversity than pure competition. LVNGM allows gaining insights into niche construction/engineering. Examples in which LVNGM can be applied range from several single-trophic natural communities, in which positive interactions have been detected, to overyielding of artificial polycultures and plant-pollinator networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig.4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data accessibility

All raw data used was obtained from bibliographic sources.

Notes

  1. We use this terminology of cooperation and competition because it is standard in ecology. However, it might be a bit misleading from an EGT viewpoint, according to which strategies always compete with each other and the one who can collect higher payoff prevails. Thus, in that sense, it is worth stressing that the C strategy is competing too vs. D.

  2. Notice that, by virtue of the formal equivalence between Lotka-Volterra equations and the replicator equation (Hofbauer and Sigmund 1998), the resulting niche games can thus also be interpreted as evolutionary games in which some strategies (species) go extinct at the equilibrium state.

  3. We choose a probability of cooperation between 0 and 1 rather than 0 or 1 just for generality, the binary choice would also work.

References

  • Agrawal, A. A., et al. (2007). Filling key gaps in population and community ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,5, 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbiza, J., Mirazo, S., & Fort, H. (2010). Viral quasispecies profiles as the result of the interplay of competition and cooperation. BMC Evolutionary Biology,10, 137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Armas, C., Rodríguez-Echeverría, S., & Pugnaire, F. I. (2012). A field test of the stress gradient hypothesis along an aridity gradient. Journal of Vegetation Science,22, 818–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The Evolution of cooperation. Science,211, 1390–1396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berendse, F. (1979). Competition between plant-populations with different root depths. 1 Theoretical considerations. Oecologia,43, 19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, M., & Rychtar, J. (2013). Game-theoretical models in biology (1st ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, J. F., Stachowicz, J. J., & Bertness, M. D. (2003). Inclusion of facilitation into ecological. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,18, 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, R. M., & Walker, L. R. (1997). Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology,78, 1958–1965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, R. M., Brooker, R. W., Choler, P., et al. (2002). Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature,417, 844–848.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, J. M. and Leibold, M. A. 2003. Ecological Niches. University of Chicago Press.

  • Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology,31, 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit, C. T. (1960). On competition. Verslagen Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen,66, 1–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, C. (1946). Competition and the structure of ecological communities. Journal of Animal Ecology,15, 54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, H. (2014). Quantitative predictions of pollinators’ abundances from qualitative data on their interactions with plants and evidences of emergent neutrality. Oikos,123, 1469–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, H. (2015). Community diversity and total abundance: Quantitative predictions from competition niche theory. Ecological Complexity,21, 120–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, H. (2018). On predicting species yields in multispecies communities: Quantifying the accuracy of the linear Lotka-Volterra generalized model. Ecological Modelling,387, 154–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, H., & Mungan, M. (2015). Predicting abundances of plants and pollinators using a simple compartmental mutualistic model. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, H., Scheffer, M., & van Nes, E. (2009). The paradox of the lumps mathematically explained. Theoretical Ecology,2, 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fort, H., Scheffer, M., & van Nes, E. (2010). The clumping transition in niche competition: a robust critical phenomenon. Journal of Statistical Mechanics,2010, P05005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. E., Rajaniemi, T., Gurevitch, J., & Stewart-Oaten, A. (1999). Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology,80, 1118–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halty, V., et al. (2017). Modelling plant interspecific interactions from experiments of perennial crop mixtures to predict optimal combinations. Ecological Applications,27, 2277–2289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofbauer, M., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hillerislambers, R., et al. (2001). Vegetation pattern formation in semi-arid grazing systems. Ecology,82, 50–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, H., & Tanimoto, J. (2018). Scaling the phase- planes of social dilemma strengths shows game-class changes in the five rules governing the evolution of cooperation. Royal Society Open Science,5, 181085.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R. (1968). Evolution in changing environments. Monographs in population biology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Long, W., Zang, R., Ding, Y., & Huang, Y. (2013). Effects of competition and facilitation on species assemblage in two types of tropical cloud forest. PLoS ONE,8, e60252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Loreau, M. (2004). Does functional redundancy exist? Oikos,104, 606–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R. H., & Levins, R. (1967). The limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. The American Naturalist,101, 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R. M. (1974). Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maestre, F. T., Martínez, I., Escolar, C., & Escudero, A. (2009). On the relationship between abiotic stress and co-occurrence patterns: An assessment at the community level using soil lichen communities and multiple stress gradients. Oikos,118, 1015–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Smith, J., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature,246, 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, R. J. (2011). Community ecology (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, J. (2018). Evolutionary game theory: A renaissance. Games.,9, 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee, G. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianka, E. R. (1976). Competition on niche theory. In R. M. May (Ed.), Theoretical ecology: principles and applications (pp. 114–141). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A. (1966). Two-person game theory: The essential ideas. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechert, S. E., & Hammerstein, P. (1983). Game theory in the ecological context. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,14, 377–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer, M., & van Nes, E. (2006). Self-organized similarity, the evolutionary emergence of groups of similar species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,103, 6230–6235.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener, T. W. (1983). Field experiments on interspecific competition. The American Naturalist,122, 240–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B. (2004). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanimoto, J., & Sagara, H. (2007). 2007 Relationship between dilemma occurrence and the existence of a weakly dominant strategy in a two-player symmetric game. BioSystems,90, 114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. D., & Jonker, L. (1978). Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences,40, 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer, J. (2011). The ecology of Agroecosystems. Sudbury: Bartlett and Jones.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignuzzi, M., et al. (2006). Quasispecies diversity determines pathogenesis through cooperative interactions in a viral population. Nature,439, 344–348.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek, P. M., Walker, L. R., Whiteaker, L. D., Muellerdombois, D., & Matson, P. A. (1987). Biological invasion of Myrica faya alters ecosystem development in Hawaii. Science,238, 802–804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull, J. (1995). Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, K. J., Braun, M., Sumegi, P., & Tóth, A. (1997). Does soil change cause vegetation change or vice versa? A temporal perspective from Hungary. Ecology,78, 740–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wundrow, E. J., Carrillo, J., Gabler, C. A., Horn, K. C., & Siemann, E. (2012). Facilitation and competition among invasive plants: A field experiment with Alligatorweed and water hyacinth. PLoS ONE,7, e48444.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work supported by ANII-Uruguay-SNI and project ERANET-LAC R&I2016-1005422.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugo Fort.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 4130 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fort, H. Combining niche and game theories to address interspecific cooperation in ecological communities. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 21, 13–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42974-020-00006-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42974-020-00006-7

Keywords

Navigation