1 / 24

Competition in Triclads

Competition in Triclads. Juan M. Jiménez University of Houston Biology and Biochemistry Pop. Bio Seminar Spring 2007. Classification and natural hist. Definition of Competition Development of competition studies on Triclads Current tendencies. Triclads classification.

dennis
Download Presentation

Competition in Triclads

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Competition in Triclads Juan M. Jiménez University of Houston Biology and Biochemistry Pop. Bio Seminar Spring 2007

  2. Classification and natural hist. • Definition of Competition • Development of competition studies on Triclads • Current tendencies

  3. Triclads classification • Phylum Platyhelminthes (flatworms) • Class Cestoda (tapeworms) • Class Trematoda (flukes) • Class Turbellaria (planarians) • Order Tricladida (triclads)

  4. Life history: Turbellaria Also called planarians Simple animals, bilaterally symmetrical and triploblastic No body cavity other than the gut and lack an anus Mostly aquatic (sea and fresh water) but some can live in humid environments. Free living Size: less than 1 mm to more than 10 mm In temeperate zones Univoltine but elsewhere can be multivoltine Simple reproductive cycle with small replicas of adults directly hatching from eggs Dugesia tigrina

  5. Interference Exploitation Competition? • “The antagonistic rivalry in which living beings are engaged in a life and death struggle for a part of the existing means of survival which are insufficient for the minimum needs of all. This situation is inherent in nature and among wild animals incapable of social cooperation. …”

  6. Why do we care? • Distribution and abundance of species • Community structure

  7. 6.6 ºC 6.6 to 16.5 ºC P. montenegrina P. Gonocephala 6.6 to 23 ºC 14 ºC 23 ºC Beauchamp and Ullyot 1932 Competition in Triclads A natural experiment. Temperature: limiting factor

  8. P alpina Pol cornuta 13.5 ºC 13.5 ºC Pol cornuta P alpina and Pol cornuta 17 ºC 17 ºC Rheocrene Limnocrene Beauchamp and Ullyot 1932 Limiting factor: rate flow of Water

  9. This method is inconclusive … • Patterns do not hold in many rivers. • Niche overlapping: weak evidence • Competition can only be demonstrated by manipulative experiments. Andrewartha and Birch (1954), Miller(1967) and Reynoldson and Bellamy (1970)

  10. Lock and Reynoldson 1976 • Tried to Perform manipulative experiments on thefield • Used new technology for establishing “shared resources” • Crenobia alpina Vs. Polycelis felina

  11. Armitage and Young 1991 • First to look at factors other than competition to explain distr. and abundance of triclads • Predation, Intraguild P. and Cannibalism • Lab manipulation of proportions in competition experiment with two different food resources.

  12. Superior But Strong tendency to equilibrium Superior Equilibrium Phagocata vitta vs. P. felina Phagocata vitta vs. C. alpina

  13. Critique … Cons: • No combination of lab and field experiments, weakens conclusions. Under natural conditions you have more than one resouse available. • Presence of common predators opens the possibility for “Apparent competition” Pros: • starts looking at other factors than competition

  14. Seaby et al. 1996 • Lab and field experiments to look at competition between triclads and leeches. • Look at competition under two “conditions” of a shared prey. • Discrepancy: niche overlap but they still coexist

  15. Prey”condition” may affect competition • Live intact prey Vs. damaged prey sophisticated chemosensory system • Developed suckers Vs.

  16. Interspecific interactions may change in time… • This paper shows how interactions can change from competition to coexistence and even facilitation with changes on prey condition over time. • This highlights the importance of experiments at longer time scales • And that interactions are not static

  17. Studies on Ecology of Triclads are stocked in time • Changes in methods … • But, continues focused on population effects of competition. • Species are immersed in communities and interactions with multiplespecies may change the outcome of competition. • Presence of common predators may allow for “apparent competition”

  18. … • Today we know that populations and communities structure are determined by multiple factors acting at the same time (top-down, bottom-up and side to side) • We know about keystone species that can control the presence and abundance of species

  19. Thank you

  20. … • The latest trend is to consider genotypic changes in key species populations and their effects at the community and ecosystem level • Whitham et al. 2006

  21. Whitham et al. 2006. Nature 7, July, 510-523. • A framework for community and ecosystem genetics

More Related