arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2012.06556q-bio.PE
收藏

保持竞争优势的多种方式:个体差异性在嗜热微生物中保持较高的biodiversity

Many ways to stay in the game: Individual variability maintains high biodiversity in planktonic micro-organisms

Susanne Menden-Deuer, Julie Rowlett

摘要:

与竞争理论明显矛盾的是,已知的、共存的浮游生物物种的数量远远超过了它们可解释的生物多样性--这种差异被称为浮游生物的多样性。我们引入了一个新的竞争微生物的博弈论模型,其中一个球员由一个物种的所有生物。在我们的模型中,种群动力学的稳定点,称为策略行为分布(SBD),是所有生物体行为的概率分布,这意味着整个物种的种群是稳定的。我们发现,种内变异是最终允许共存的关键特征,因为具有可变竞争能力的个体之间的竞争结果是不可预测的。我们的模拟的基础上的理论模型表明,多达100个物种可以共存至少10000代,即使是小的人口规模或竞争能力较差的物种可以生存时,有种内变异。在自然界中,这种变异性可以被观察到为生态位分化、环境和生态因子〈动〉<动>的变异性以及个体行为或生理的变异性。因此,先前对悖论的具体解释与我们的建议一致,并提供了具体的例子,即个体差异是解决悖论的机制。

英文摘要:

In apparent contradiction to competition theory, the number of known, co-existing plankton species far exceeds their explicable biodiversity - a discrepancy termed the Paradox of the Plankton. We introduce a new game-theoretic model for competing micro-organisms in which one player consists of all organisms of one species. The stable points for the population dynamics in our model, known as strategic behavior distributions (SBDs), are probability distributions of behaviors across all organisms which imply a stable population of the species as a whole. We find that intra-specific variability is the key characteristic that ultimately allows co-existence because the outcomes of competitions between individuals with variable competitive abilities is unpredictable. Our simulations based on the theoretical model show that up to 100 species can coexist for at least 10000 generations, and that even small population sizes or species with inferior competitive ability can survive when there is intra-specific variability. In nature, this variability can be observed as niche differentiation, variability in environmental and ecological factors, and variability of individual behaviors or physiology. Therefore previous specific explanations of the paradox are consistent with and provide specific examples of our suggestion that individual variability is the mechanism which solves the paradox.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑