CHAPTER 5

Factors affecting Distribution

and Abundance :
Biotic components
 Learning Outcome

 Define biotic factors

 Acquire knowledge on the interrelationship
between organism
 Describe the criteria proposed for predator to
restrict its prey
 Explain resource partitioning
 What is biotic factors?

 Biotic factors are factors produced by

living organisms that affect the ability of
other living organisms to survive in an
environment.
 Example: disease, parasitism, predation,
allelopathy and competition.
 a) Predation:
Restriction of Prey by Predators
(How predator can restrict the
prey)

4
 Example 1

 Works by Kitching &

Ebling (1967) – studies in
Ireland on the mussel
(Mytilus edulis)
 an intertidal
(foreshore) animal that
is wide spread
throughout the world
 Provided some e.g on the
influence of predation on
distribution
 Small-sized mussels
are abundant at
exposed rocky shores
(higher shore)
 In more protected
parts (crevices, low
shore), larger-sized
mussels are
abundant.
 Kitching transferred
rock with attached
mussels from one
area to another
 Results
7

 Small mussels transplanted to/within the area –

survived only on exposed areas while in other areas
they disappeared - because of the influence of
predators. (predators feed on lower shore)
 Large mussels survived in lower shore because
they are larger than predators
 Large mussels only survived in their natural
habitat but disappeared in transplanted areas
Tidal Open Coast – heavy wave action restricts the
size of mussels and prevents predators from
eliminating small mussels
Sheltered Waters – Predators eliminate most of the
small mussels, and Mytilus survive only in areas
safe from predators
Area Mussel Predator type Predator Abiotic
type distribution/habitat
Exposed Small- Small mussel- Exposed area- Wave-
area sized Carcinus Marthasterias strong
mussel maenas (crab) glacialis (Starfish) Salinity-
Portunus high
puber (crab)
Nucella
lapillus (snail)
Shelter, Large- Large mussel- Shallow water- Wave-
shallow sized Marthasterias Carcinus maenas weak
mussel glacialis (crab) Salinity-
(Starfish) Portunus puber low
(crab)
Nucella lapillus
(snail)

9
 Example 2
10

 Kitching & Ebling (1961) – relationship between

sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus and algae.
 The predator (sea urchin) lives in the shallow part
of the sublittoral zone (under beach) – just
below the tide level.

 In areas where there is abundant sea urchins, the

area is relatively free of algae

 In areas where there is little sea urchin, the algae

are abundant
 They did experiments of clearing 1957 sea urchins
(290 m2)
- Algae immediately began to colonize and grow in
the sea urchin cleared area.

 In adjacent areas where there were sea urchin,

algae cover was not visible.
 13

 The authors then transferred the sea urchin into

areas that had high growth of algae– the areas began
to be clear of algae.

 There was thus a reverse relationship between sea

urchin and algae cover
 Example 3
 In Australia small 14
kangaroos (prey) have
been driven to extinction
by:
1. Predation of introduced
sp. i.e, the red fox
(predator)
2. Competition for food
with rabbits.
 Habitat: Small kangaroo
(rock wallabies) habitats
are rocky hills throughout
Australia
 Their numbers have been
declining and numerous
colonies have become
extinct
 15

 Kinnear et al. (1998) tested the hypothesis that

red fox predation was sufficient to limit the
population and size distribution of rock wallabies
Test: They poisoned red foxes around experimental
colonies at rocky hills
Result:
 1. it showed that the populations of wallabies recovered
(in absence of red fox)
 2. Without foxes, wallabies ranged further from rocky
sites to feed
In Australia, Rock Wallaby populations have been declining since the
introduction of the red fox.
When red foxes are removed, rock wallaby populations expand.

Extinct Population!
 Example 4 – Rat Kangaroo
17

 Previously found extensively over Australia.

 Presently only found at 3 islands off the coast of Western

Australia where there are no red foxes.

 1992 - Reintroduced to mainland, isolated by electric fence

to prevent fox immigration and poisons to eliminate foxes.

 Reintroduction was a success.

4 criteria for predator to restrict its
prey
1) Suspected predator is able to kill
prey in lab (experiment) and field
18

(nature)
2) Suspected predator is responsible
for destruction of prey in
transplantation experiments
3) prey survives after transplanted if
they are protected from predators
4) prey distribution and suspected
predator are inversely related
19
b) Restriction of Predator by Prey
(How prey can restrict the
predator)

20
Restriction Of Predators By Prey

 If a prey restricts a predators

range, then that predator must
feed only on one or two species of
that prey.
 Mostly plant/herbivore interactions
 These type of predators are called
specialists or monophagous.
 Example 1
22

 Chrysolina quadrigemina introduced in US to control the Kalmath

weed, Hypericum perforatum.

 Adults and larvae of beetle will only feed on the Hypericum or they will
die if feed on other plants

 Adult beetles display an obligatory feeding response to the chemical

hypericin (Schoeps et al., 1996)

 The beetles refuse to stand on other leaves that have different surface
feature to that of Hypericum

 The life history, feeding habits, behavior and distribution of the beetle
(predator) is restricted by its single plant (prey)
 23

 Insects that feed on only one host plant (monophagous

insects) could be limited in their distribution by the host
plant.

 To date there is no indication that the ranges of food plants

and their monophagous insect herbivore coincide (Quinn et
al., 1998)

 Example of the butterfly in Britain – no association

between food plant distribution and butterfly distribution

 Even for widespread species of butterflies the host plant

occurs in many areas in which the butterfly does not –
something else must limit butterfly distribution
24
Disease & Parasitism

25
 Disease & Parasitism
26

 Parasites and pathogens can limit and restrict distributions

 Example – chestnut blight, native bird fauna of Hawaii
 Native birds of Hawaii have become extinct due to
introduced disease – (Warner, 1968):
1. avian pox (initially) and 2. avian malaria (later) were
instrumental in causing extinction in the Hawaiian Islands

Bill tumors results of avian

pox
 27

 The idea that disease might be involved arose from

observations that:
 native birds occupy upperland in Hawaii and are
relatively common only at elevation above 1500 m
 while introduced birds occupy lowland
 •introduced birds
occupy lowland

•native birds in Hawaii

are relatively common
only at elevation above
1500 m

malarial vector,
Culex
quinquefasciatus
is most common in
lowland areas

28
 29

 The malarial vector, Culex quinquefasciatus is

conversely most common in lowland areas

Female Culex quinquefasciatus

Male Culex quinquefasciatus

 30

 The initial extinction of native birds was initially

influenced by habitat clearing for agriculture and
introduction of rats, cats, and pigs and avian pox
(before 1900) and subsequent extinction by
introduction of avian malaria.

 Birds that went extinct at this time (early 1900)

lived in the mid-elevation forests where malaria
parasites are most common.
Malarial
vector

malarial parasite density is most

abundant in mosquitoes at
intermediate elevations where
vectors (mosquitoes) and
host (bird) overlap

31
 32

Allelopathy
 Allelopathy
33

 Definition: The inhibition of growth and

development in one species of plants by chemicals
produced from another species,
- plant vs plant
 Plants in particular may be limited by distribution
of poisons, antibiotics or allelopathic
agents – (Brock & Madigan, 1988)
 Impact-
- soil sickness??
- Decrease in yields
- did not increase even after adding of fertilizers
 Example 1
34

 Grass and apple tress

Experiment design:
 Apple trees grown with 3 different sources of
water:
a. a primary source, tap water
b. a secondary source, water passing through grass and
soil and
c. Water that had passed through soil only
 The growth of apple seedling was inhibited by
something produced by the grass and carried by
water.
35
 alfalfa plants
Example 2
 Effect of black walnut trees (Juglans
nigra) on grass and alfalfa plants.
36
 Roots secrete a toxin to which
tomatoes and alfalfa could not
grow but others like corn and beet
showed no ill effect
 The chemical is juglone, 5 –
hydroxy-α-napthaquinone) from
roots and hulls of black wallnut
(Davis, 1928)
 Some close relatives of black
walnut (Juglans regia, J. bindsii, J.
califronica) do not produce toxins
 Inhibitor of seed germination
 Tomatoes and alfalfa wilt when
grown near black walnuts, and
their seedlings die if their roots
contact walnut roots. Juglans
nigra
 37

Competition
 38

 Presence of other organisms may limit distribution

of some species through competition
 Allelopathy is one specific type of competition for
living space, concurrent
 Allelopathy vs competition
 39

 Competition can also be for 2 species that uses the

same resources and live in the same sort of places
 They need not be closely related to compete for the
resources
– birds, rodents and ants may compete for seeds in desert
environments
– herbs and shrubs compete for water in dry areas

 Competition among animals is usually for food,

mate, habitat.
 Plants compete for sunlight, nutrients, water, even
pollinators
 40

 How do we know if competition is

restricting geographic distribution?
– when sp A is absent, sp. B lives in a wider range
of habitats.

 In some extreme cases a habitat will contain only

sp A or B and never both.

 The difficulty is that competition is only one of the

several hypotheses that can account for the
observed distributions.
 Example 1- Checkerboard distribution
41

 Checkerboard distribution of closely related sp –

ecologically related sp. in an island archipelago –
interdigitating distributions (become interlocked)– each
island supporting only 1 sp.

 The fruit pigeon in the Bismarck Archipelago – Ptilinopus

rivoli and P. solomonensis.

 The successful colonist is either first-come-first basis or on

the basis of slight competitive advantage.
42
 Example 2
43

 Competition among chipmunks – Eutamias

dorsalis, E. umbrinus
 E. dorsalis (cliff chipmunk, lower elevation)
excludes E. umbrinus (higher elevation)
 The 2 sp interact at about 2100 m where the levels
of competition are highest

Eutamias Eutamias
dorsalis umbrinus
 44

 E. dorsalis
- cliff chipmunk, lower elevation prefers lives on the
ground, less trees
- aggressive to its own and other chipmunk sp.
 E. umbrinus
- higher elevation
- lots of trees
- spends its time on trees
- moves from tree to tree along interlocking branches
 45

 At lower elevation where trees are sparse, E.

dorsalis exludes E. umbrinus by its superior
aggression.

 Aggression become ineffective when tress are close

(dense) spaced because the arboreal E. umbrinus
escapes through the trees.

 Competitive success of E. umbrinus is determined

by habitat structure.
46
 Resource partitioning
47

 When 2 sp compete for resources:

i. one will always be a better competitor and the other will
lose out and disappear.

ii. evolves together, adapt to Resource

partitioning
escape/ minimize competition

 2 evolutionary strategies a weaker competitor species

can develop:
i. avoid the superior competitor by selecting different part of
the habitat (E. umbrinus –arboreal)
ii. avoid the superior competitor by selecting a different diet
(diet shift)
 Example 3
48

 Crossbill finches – extract seeds from cones – 3 sp live in

Eurasia and are adapted for eating different foods
i) Small crossbill – (Loxia leucoptera) – small bill feeds on larch seeds
– cones are soft
ii) Medium sized crossbill (L. curvitrostra) – eats spruce seeds
iii) Large crossbill (L. pytyopsittacus) eats the hard cones of Scotch
pines.

 This minimizes dietary overlap in regions where all three

possible competitors live

Loxia Loxia
leucoptera pytyopsittacus