Third Exam Thursday 4 May 2017 Chapters 11-15, 17-18 plus 8 readings Energy Money Land Food Water Sewage Solutions Space Travel 28th Lecture November 2017 Final Exam --- 10 May, 7-10 PM Welch 1.308

Modes of Transmission of Parasites Biological Control Oryctolagus x Myxoma Opuntia x Cactoblastis Cane Toads _____________________________________________________________ Darwinian Medicine: Application of an evolutionary approach to medical treatment Don’t treat symptoms. Distinguish host defenses from parasite manipulation Coevolution Pinworms x Primates Drosophila pachea and Senita cactus Wild ginger, Asarum caudatum, and slug Ariolimax columbianus Plant Apparency Expensive quantitative vs inexpensive qualitative chemical defenses Janzen’s Seedling Ring Hypothesis Pine squirrels (Tamiasciurus) seed predation and coniferous food trees

Community and Ecosystem Ecology Macrodescriptors = Aggregate Variables Compartment models, trophic structure, food webs, connectance, rates of energy fixation and flow, biogeochemical cycles, ecological energetics, ecological efficiency, trophic continuum, guild structure, ecological pyramids, successional stages, transition matrix, species diversity, stability, relative importance curves. Bottom Line. Communities are not designed by natural selection for smooth and efficient function, but are composed of many antagonists (we need to attempt to understand them in terms of interactions between individual organisms)

Gross Productivity = rate at which plants capture solar energy Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics Gross Productivity = rate at which plants capture solar energy Gross annual production (GAP) Net productivity = gross productivity minus respiration losses Net annual production (NAP) Respiration in tropical rainforest 75-80% of GAP Respiration in temperate forests 50-75% of GAP In most other communities, it is 25-50 % of GAP Only about 5-10% of plant food is harvested by animals Remainder of NAP is consumed by decomposers Biogeochemical cycles

Biogeochemical Cycle for Calcium Hydrologic Cycle Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac X

Compartmentation Trophic Levels Autotrophs = producers Guild Structure Heterotrophs = consumers & decomposers Primary carnivores = secondary consumers Secondary carnivores = tertiary consumers Trophic continuum Horizontal versus vertical interactions Within and between trophic levels Guild Structure Foliage gleaning insectivorous birds Food Webs Subwebs, sink vs. source food webs Connectance [n (n-1)] / 2

Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics

Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics

Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics At equilibrium (dLi/dt = 0 for all i), energy flow in the system portrayed in the figure may thus be represented by a set of simple equations (with inputs on the left and rate of outflow to the right of the equal signs): l10 = l01 + l02 + l03 + l04 l10 = l21 + l01 + l41 l21 = l32 + l02 + l42 l32 = l03 + l43 l41 + l42 + l43 = l04

Systems Ecology

Food Web R. T. Paine (1966) Chiton Patella Mytilus Balanus Mitella

Food Web Bottom Line

Food Webs Kirk Winemiller

Ecological Pyramids (numbers, biomass, and energy) Pyramid of energy Measures of standing crop versus rates of flow

Secondary Succession

Institute Woods in Princeton 25, 65, 150, 350 year-old stands

Transition Matrix for Institute Woods in Princeton 11 species of trees _________________________________________________________________________ Canopy Sapling Species (%) Species BTA GB SF BG SG WO OK HI TU RM BE Total __________________________________________________________________________ BT Aspen 3 5 9 6 6 - 2 4 2 60 3 104 Gray birch - - 47 12 8 2 8 0 3 17 3 837 Sassafras 3 1 10 3 6 3 10 12 - 37 15 68 Blackgum 1 1 3 20 9 1 7 6 10 25 17 80 Sweetgum - - 16 0 31 0 7 7 5 27 7 662 White Oak - - 6 7 4 10 7 3 14 32 17 71 Red Oak - - 2 11 7 6 8 8 8 33 17 266 Hickory - - 1 3 1 3 13 4 9 49 17 223 Tuliptree - - 2 4 4 - 11 7 9 29 34 81 Red Maple - - 13 10 9 2 8 19 3 13 23 489 Beech - - - 2 1 1 1 1 8 6 80 405 __________________________________________________________________________ BTA in next generation = 0.03 BTA + 0.03 SF + 0.01 BG . Grand Total = 3286 Henry Horn

Distributions of Trees Observed in 4 Forests and Predicted Climax __________________________________________________________________ __________________ Age (years) BTA GB SF BG SG WO OK HI TU RM BE __________________________________________________________________ __________________ 25 0 49 2 7 18 0 3 0 0 20 1 65 26 6 0 45 0 0 12 1 4 6 0 150 - - 0 1 5 0 22 0 0 70 2 350 - - - 6 - 3 - 0 14 1 76 Predicted climax 0 0 2 3 4 2 4 6 6 10 63 Data from the Institute Woods in Princeton (Horn 1975) Henry Horn

Diversity and Community Stability Diversity and Community Stability Saturation with Individuals and with Species Species Diversity = Biodiversity Species Density or Species Richness Relative Abundance/Importance Equitability

Species Diversity, Relative Abundance. Species. Site A. Site B. A. 10 Species Diversity, Relative Abundance Species Site A Site B A 10 91 B 10 1 C 10 1 D 10 1 E 10 1 F 10 1 G 10 1 H 10 1 I 10 1 J 10 1

Relative Abundance / Importance Ways two systems can differ in diversity Relative Abundance / Importance

All 10 Sites: Total Number of lizards: 20,990 Total numbers of lizards of 67 species collected on 10 desert study sites from 1966-2008 plotted against their ranks in relative abundance. The 12 most common species (blue) are named, along with 7 of the 54 less common to rare species (green, red). Samples exceed 30 for 48 of the 67 species.

Latitudinal Gradients in Species Richness

From: Schall and Pianka 1978 Science 201: 679-686.

Latitudinal gradients in diversity Time theories, degree of saturation with species Climatic stability and climatic predictability, niche breadth Spatial heterogeneity, range of available resources Productivity and stability of productivity Competition —> specialization, narrow niches, higher diversity Disturbance, intermediate disturbance hypothesis, niche overlap Predation-induced diversity (Paine’s Pisaster experiment)

Productivity Hypothesis

Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis

Tree Species Diversity in Tropical Rain Forests Seed Predation Hypothesis Nutrient Mosaic Hypothesis Circular Networks Hypothesis Disturbance Hypothesis (Epiphyte Load Hypothesis)