1. COMPETITION (Chapter 13)

2. COMPETITION: INTRASPECIFIC versus INTERSPECIFIC

3. 13 Leafhopper Demonstrating Intraspecific Competition in Animals

4. Fig. 13.6 in Molles 2008 Number of Leafhoppers (per cage) Number of Leafhoppers (per cage) Demonstrating Intraspecific Competition in Animals

5. 10 Alfalfa 11 12 Demonstrating IntraspecificCompetition in Plants

6. Fig. 13-5 in Molles 2008 -3/2 Thinning Rule (Sometimes) Demonstrating Intraspecific Competition in Plants

7. COMPETITION: INTERFERENCE vs. RESOURCE Interference Competition Resource Competition

8. Trenched (Treatment)Untrenched (Control) 7 8 Demonstrating Resource Competition

9. Trenched Untrenched Demonstrating Resource Competition (Results)

10. Demonstrating Interference Competition.36m 2 Plots, Stocked with Sliced Carrots and Potatos Density: 50 IsopodsDensity: 100 Isopods

11. Demonstrating Interference Competition Fig. 13.7 in Molles 2008

12. INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION Giant Kelp (Macrocystis) Bull Kelp (Nereocystis)

13. Galium saxatile Galium pumilum 6 7 Demonstrating Interspecific Competition in Plants

14. Tansley (1917) Demonstrating Interspecific Competition in Plants

15. Understanding Interspecific Competition in Context of Niche Giant Kelp (Macrocystis) Bull Kelp (Nereocystis)

16. Graphical Depiction of Giant Kelp Niche (Three Axes) Nutrients Light Carbon Dioxide

17. 15 Giant Kelp Niche: Other Abiotic Factors? N – Dimensional Hypervolume: Hypothetical Space that Represents ALL N Physical Factors that Influence Growth, Survival and Reproduction

18. Range of physical conditions in which a given species can live in the absence of negative interactions with other species FUNDAMENTAL NICHE Nutrients Light Carbon Dioxide

19. 16 15 Negative Interactions with Other Species

20. NICHE OVERLAP Fundamental Niches of Giant Kelp, Bull Kelp in One Dimension Giant Kelp Bull Kelp Light Intensity

21. Photosynthesis Rate ADJUSTMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL NICHE IN PRESENCE OF COMPETITOR Giant KelpBull Kelp Giant Kelp Bull Kelp Light Intensity

22. Range of physical conditions in which a given species can live in the presence of negative interactions with other species REALIZED NICHE Photosynthesis Rate Giant Kelp Bull Kelp Light Intensity

23. Fig. 13.20 in Molles 2008 Consequences of Interspecific Competition

24. Fundamental and Realized Niche of Chthalamus

25. Two Species with Same or Very Similar Niche: Is Coexistence Possible? Resource Utilization

26. Competitive Exclusion Principle: (G.F. Gause) Two Species with Identical Niches CAN NOT Coexist Indefinitely

27. Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition I (Begin with Logistic Rate Equations for N 1, N 2 ) Note: These equations incorporate effects of intraspecific competition

28. Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition II (Incorporate Interspecific Competition)

29. Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition III (Assume Equilibrium Conditions)

30. Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition IV (Determine Equations for Zero-Change Isoclines)

31. Fig. 14.13 in Molles 2008 Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition V (Species 1 Strong Competitor, Species 2 Weak Competitor)

32. Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition VI (Species 1 Weak Competitor, Species 2 Strong Competitor)

33. Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition VII (Both Species are Strong Competitors) N2N2

34. Mathematical Modeling of Interspecific Competition VII (Both Species are Weak Competitors)

35. Competitive Exclusion Principle: (G.F. Gause) Two Species with Identical Niches CAN NOT Coexist Indefinitely (i.e., Two Strong Competitors for the Same Resource CAN NOT Co-Exist Indefinitely)

36. Paramecium aurelia 1 Paramecium caudatum 2 3 Testing Competitive Exclusion Principle

37. Fig. 13.15 in Molles 2008 Paramecium Species: Grown Separately (Gause 1934) Testing Competitive Exclusion Principle

38. Fig. 21-1 in Ricklefs and Miller 2000 Paramecium Species: Grown Together (Gause 1934) Testing Competitive Exclusion Principle

39. Tribolium confusum Tribolium castaneum 4 5 Testing Competitive Exclusion Principle

40. Fig. 13.16 in Molles 2008 Flour Beetle Species: Grown Separately (Park 1954) Testing Competitive Exclusion Principle

41. Fig. 13-16 in Molles 2008 Flour Beetle Species Grown Together (Gause 1934) Interspecific Competition in Animals: Consequences

42. Wide-Leaf Cattail (Typha latifolia) Narrow-Leaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia) CATTAIL COMPETITION

43. Wide-Leaf Cattail (Typha latifolia) Narrow-Leaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia) Cattail Species Grown Together

44. Wide-Leaf Cattail (Typha latifolia) Narrow-Leaf Cattail Removed

45. Narrow-Leaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia) Wide-Leaf Cattail Removed

46. Balanus 9 Chthamalus 10

47. Zonation in Barnacle Communities

48. Fig. 13.19 in Molles 2006 Balanus Removal: Middle Intertidal Zone Chthamalus Survivorship

49. 9 Dipodomys (Kangaroo Rat) 10 Perognathus (Pocket Mouse) Large Granivores Small Granivores Insectivores Onychomys DESERT RODENTS

50. 24 Study Plots: Chihuahuan Desert near Portal AZ

51. Fig. 13.23 in Molles 2006 Experiment: Removal of Large Granivores (Heske et al. 1994)

52. Geospiza fortis (Medium Ground-Finch) Darwin’s Finches Geospiza fuliginosa (Small Ground-Finch) 13 EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETITION

53. Fig. 13.25 in Molles 2006 Allopatric versus Sympatric Populations G. fortis G. fuliginosa G. fortis, G. fuliginosa

54. G. fortis G. fuliginosa G. fortis, G. fuliginosa CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT: BEAK DEPTH