On ecological modelling problems in the context of resolving the biodiversity paradox

Kalmykov, Vyacheslav L.; Kalmykov, Lev V.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.03.005

Cited by 9 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most well-known model of interspecific competition is the Lotka-Volterra model. This model is based on differential equations and that is why it is nonmechanistic or phenomenological (Huston et al, 1988; Kalmykov and Kalmykov, 2013; Kalmykov and Kalmykov, 2016; Tilman, 1987). This model is of black-box type because, despite the fact that it is deterministic, it does not model neither local interactions nor part-whole relationships.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unreality of the hypothesis of ecological equivalence is obvious and for Hubbell with colleagues, as they assert that “the real world is not neutral” (Rosindell et al). The long-standing debates on the biodiversity paradox as “competitive exclusion principle versus natural biodiversity” has been substituted for theoretical debates “neutrality versus the niche” (Kalmykov and Kalmykov, 2016; Whitfield, 2002). Understanding of biodiversity mechanisms should be based on mechanistic models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The obvious rarity of implementation the competitive exclusion principle removes the paradox of biodiversity because it eliminates the contradiction between the principle and the observed natural facts. In addition, we generalized the reformulated principle, setting out conditions under which one competitor is able to displace all others: If a competitor completely prevents any use of at least one necessary resource by all its competitors, and itself always has access to all necessary resources and the ability to use them, then, all other things being equal, all its competitors will be excluded (Kalmykov and Kalmykov, 2015a; Kalmykov and Kalmykov, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If a competitor completely prevents any use of at least one necessary resource by all its competitors, and itself always has access to all necessary resources and the ability to use them, then, all other things being equal, all its competitors will be excluded (Kalmykov and Kalmykov, 2015a; Kalmykov and Kalmykov, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Coexistence of complete competitors with fitness inequality

Kalmykov

2017

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There was a long standing contradiction between formulations of the competitive exclusion principle and natural species richness, which is known as the biodiversity paradox. Here we investigate a role of fitness differences in coexistence of two completely competing species using individual-based cellular automata. According to the classical formulations of the competitive exclusion principle such coexistence is impossible. Earlier we found that coexistence of complete competitors is possible with a 100% difference in fitness, but only under certain initial conditions. Here we verify a hypothesis that completely competing species may coexist with less than 100% difference in fitness regardless of different initial location of competing individuals in the ecosystem. We have found a new fact that two aggressively propagating complete competitors can stably coexist in one limited, stable and homogeneous habitat, when one species has some advantage in fitness over the other and all other characteristics of the species are equal, in particular any trade-offs and cooperations are absent. This fact is established theoretically on the rigorous model. The found competitive coexistence occurred regardless of the initial location of individuals in the ecosystem. When colonization of free habitat started from a single individual of each species, then the complete competitors coexisted up to 31% of their difference in fitness. And when on initial stage half of the territory was probabilistically occupied, the complete competitors coexisted up to 22% of their difference in fitness. These results additionally support our reformulation of the competitive exclusion principle, which we consider as resolving of the biodiversity paradox.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Coexistence of complete competitors with fitness inequality

Kalmykov

2017

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, we want to express our opinion that further development of the theory of complex dynamic systems will be based on structures consisting of states of their subsystems and on transition diagram between these states. For nearly seventy years there is the appropriate language-the category theory [19,20]. Cellular automata are the appropriate instrument for categorical modelling of complex systems dynamics.…”

Section: Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Axiomatic cellular automata modelling as a promising way to a general theory of ecological physics

Kalmykov¹,

Kalmykov²,

Kalmykov³

2017

MOJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The observed loss of biodiversity calls to create a general theory of ecological physics for better understanding of the events. Due to the inseparable mutuality of organism and environment, ecological physics should combine biophysics (physics of organisms) and environmental physics. We guess that a general theory of ecological physics should include as an abstract physical description of an ecosystem and a tool for its transparent ("white box") modelling. Such a theory should have a system of basic axioms. Here we demonstrate that logical cellular automata allow to create transparent models of ecosystems. The system of basic axioms of the general theory of ecological physics performs the role of the cellular automata rules. We believe that such a transparent mathematical modelling from the first principles is very promising not only for the ecology, but also for modelling of any complex dynamic systems. deterministic inference of white-box models. Here we introduce a physics-based semantics (ontology) of our ecosystem models. Further, we transform this semantics to a set of axiomatic cellular automata rules. An elementary object of our models is a micro ecosystem. This is the basic ideal "self-moving" object of our models. Autonomous dynamics of this object is characterized by a set of states, and the diagram of their sequential change in accordance with the principles of the extreme. Following Tansley, we consider individuals with their ''special environment, with which they form one physical system'' [1]. A microhabitat is the intrinsic part of environmental resources of one individual and it contains all necessary resources for its life. It is an intrinsic part of all environmental resources and conditions per one individual. The high-grade (''fresh'') energy flow of solar radiation provides an individual's life in a microhabitat. The flow of lowered-grade (''used-up'') energy which is produced during an individual's life goes into the cold space and also provides the conditions for an individual's life in a microhabitat. A living organism is not able to function without the heat output to a ''refrigerator''. Ultimately, the cold space performs a role of the refrigerator. A working cycle of a micro ecosystem's processes represents a closed circle, which includes occupation of a microhabitat by an individual and restoration of used resources after an individual's death. A micro eco-system, includes a single microhabitat and is able to provide a single accommodation of one individual, but it cannot provide its propagation. This is due to the fact that after an individual's death, its microhabitat goes into a regeneration (refractory) state, which is not suitable for immediate occupation. A minimal ecosystem, providing a possibility of vegetative propagation of an individual, must consist of two microhabitats. In our models vegetative propagation is carried out due to resources of an individual's microhabitat by placing a finished vegetative primordium of a descendant in a free microhabitat of an indiv...

show abstract

A solution to the dilemma `limiting similarity vs. limiting dissimilarity' by a method of transparent artificial intelligence

Kalmykov

2021

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On ecological modelling problems in the context of resolving the biodiversity paradox

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Coexistence of complete competitors with fitness inequality

Coexistence of complete competitors with fitness inequality

Axiomatic cellular automata modelling as a promising way to a general theory of ecological physics

A solution to the dilemma `limiting similarity vs. limiting dissimilarity' by a method of transparent artificial intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About