Skip to main content
Register
Springer Professional
SEARCH
MENU 1 2 3 4
main-content
Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Published in:
Cognitive Architectures: The Dialectics of Agent/Environment Read chapter Read first chapter

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

EcoSim, an Enhanced Artificial Ecosystem: Addressing Deeper Behavioral, Ecological, and Evolutionary Questions

Authors: Ryan Scott, Brian MacPherson, Robin Gras

Published in: Cognitive Architectures

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Login to get access
share
SHARE

Abstract

This chapter discusses individual-based models (IBMs) and uses the Overview, Design concepts, and Details (ODD) protocol to describe a predator-prey evolutionary ecosystem IBM called EcoSim. EcoSim is one of the most complex and large-scale IBMs of its kind, allowing hundreds of thousands of intricate individuals to interact and evolve over thousands of time steps. Individuals in EcoSim have a behavioral model represented by a fuzzy cognitive map (FCM). The FCM, described in this chapter, is a cognitive architecture well-suited for individuals in EcoSim due to its efficiency and the complexity of decision-making it allows. Furthermore, it can be encoded as a vector of real numbers, lending itself to being part of the genetic material passed on by individuals during reproduction. This allows for meaningful evolution of their behaviors and natural selection without predefined fitness. EcoSim has been enhanced to increase the breadth and depth of the questions it can answer. New features include: fertilization of primary producers by consumers, predator-prey combat, sexual reproduction, sex-linkage of genes, multiple modes of reproduction, size-based dominance hierarchy, and more. In addition to describing EcoSim in detail, we present data from default EcoSim runs to show potential users the types of data EcoSim generates. Furthermore, we present a brief sensitivity analysis of some variables in EcoSim, and a case study that demonstrates research that can be performed using EcoSim. In the case study, we elucidate some evolutionary and behavioral impacts on animals under two conditions: when primary production is limited, and when energy expenditure is reduced.
previous chapter Implementing Social Smart Environments with a Large Number of Believable Inhabitants in the Context of Globalization
Literature
1.
2.
Andersson, M. B. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3.
4.
Aspinall A, Gras R (2010) K-Means clustering as a speciation method within an individual-based evolving predator-prey ecosystem simulation. In 6th International Conference on Active media technology (pp. 318–329). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
5.
Augusiak, J., Van den Brink, P. J., & Grimm, V. (2014). Merging validation and evaluation of ecological models to evaludation: A review of terminology and a practical approach. Ecological Modelling, 280, 117–128. CrossRef
6.
Augustine, D. J., & McNaughton, S. J. (1998). Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of plant communities: Herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. The Journal of wildlife management, 62, 1165–1183. CrossRef
7.
Bardgett, R. D., Wardle, D. A., & Yeates, G. W. (1998). Linking above-ground and below-ground interac-tions: How plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil organisms. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30, 1867–1878. CrossRef
8.
Bardgett, R. D., Streeter, T., & Bol, R. (2003). Soil microbes compete effectively with plants for organic nitrogen inputs to temperate grasslands. Ecology, 84, 1277–1287. CrossRef
9.
Bateson, P. (1983). Mate Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Berryman, A. A. (1992). The origins and evolution of predator-prey theory. Ecology, 73, 1530–1535. CrossRef
11.
Blaxter, K. L. (1989). Energy Metabolism in Animals and Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
13.
Box, G.E.P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer, & G. N. Wil-kinson (Eds.), Robustness in Statistics (pp. 201–236). Academic Press.
14.
Bollache, L., Kaldonski, N., Troussard, J. P., et al. (2006). Spines and behaviour as defences against fish predators in an invasive freshwater amphipod. Animal Behaviour, 72, 627–633. CrossRef
15.
Brännström, A., & Sumpter, D. J. T. (2005). The role of competition and clustering in population dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272, 2065–2072. CrossRef
16.
Britten, G. L., Dowd, M., Minto, C., et al. (2014). Predator decline leads to decreased stability in a coastal fish community. Ecology letters, 17, 1518–1525. CrossRef
17.
Brodie, E. D, I. I. I., & Brodie, E. D, Jr. (1999). Predator-prey arms races: asymmetrical selection on predators and prey may be reduced when prey are dangerous. Bioscience, 49, 557–568. CrossRef
18.
Brodie, E. D, Jr., Ridenhour, B. J., & Brodie, E. D, I. I. I. (2002). The evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey: hotspots and coldspots in the geographic mosaic of coevolution between garter snakes and newts. Evolution, 56, 2067–2082. CrossRef
19.
Bürger, R. (2000). The Mathematical Theory of Selection, Recombination, and Mutation. Chichester: Wiley. MATH
20.
Butler, P. J., Green, J. A., Boyd, I. L., & Speakman, J. R. (2004). Measuring metabolic rate in the field: The pros and cons of the doubly labelled water and heart rate methods. Functional ecology, 18, 168–183. CrossRef
21.
Chapman, J. L., & Reiss, M. J. (1999). Ecology: Principles and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
23.
Clune, J., Goldsby, H. J., Ofria, C., & Pennock, R. T. (2011). Selective pressures for accurate altruism targeting: Evidence from digital evolution for difficult-to-test aspects of inclusive fitness theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278, 666–674. CrossRef
24.
Davies, T. J., Savolainen, V., Chase, M. W., et al. (2004). Environmental energy and evolutionary rates in flowering plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2195–2200. CrossRef
25.
DeAngelis DL, Grimm V (2014) Individual-based models in ecology after four decades. F1000Prime Report, 6(39).
26.
27.
de Los Santos, C. B., Neuparth, T., Torres, T., et al. (2015). Ecological modelling and toxicity data coupled to assess population recovery of marine amphipod Gammarus locusta: Application to disturbance by chronic exposure to aniline. Aquatic Toxicology, 163, 60–70.
28.
Devaurs, D., & Gras, R. (2010). Species abundance patterns in an ecosystem simulation studied through Fishers logseries. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 18, 100–123. CrossRef
29.
Drent, R. H., & Van der Wal, R. (1999). Cyclic Grazing in Vertebrates and the Manipulation of the Food Resource. In H. Olff, V. K. Brown, & R. H. Drent (Eds.), Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators (pp. 271–299). London: Blackwell.
30.
Eklöf, J., & uba J, Petersons G, Rydell J., (2014). Visual acuity and eye size in five European bat species in relation to foraging and migration strategies. Environmental and Experimental Biology, 12, 1–6.
31.
Falk, D. (1990). Brain evolution in Homo: The ’radiator’ theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 333–344. CrossRef
32.
33.
Frank, B. M., & Baret, P. V. (2013). Simulating brown trout demogenetics in a river/nursery brook system: The individual-based model DemGenTrout. Ecological modelling, 248, 184–202. CrossRef
34.
Frank, D., & Evans, R. (1997). Effects of native grazers on N cycling in a north-temperate grassland ecosystem: Yellowstone National Park. Ecology, 78, 2238–2249. CrossRef
35.
Frank, D., & Groffman, P. (1998). Ungulate versus landscape control of soil C and N processes in grasslands of Yellowstone National Park. Ecology, 79, 2229–2241. CrossRef
36.
Friman, V. P., Hiltunen, T., Laakso, J., & Kaitala, V. (2008). Availability of prey resources drives evolution of predator-prey interaction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 275, 1625–1633. CrossRef
37.
Garamszegi, L. Z., Mller, A. P., & Erritzøe, J. (2002). Coevolving avian eye size and brain size in rela-tion to prey capture and nocturnality. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 269, 961–967. CrossRef
38.
Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., West, G. B., & Brown, J. H. (2005). The rate of DNA evolution: effects of body size and temperature on the molecular clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 140–145. CrossRef
39.
40.
Golestani, A., & Gras, R. (2010). Regularity analysis of an individual-based ecosystem simulation. Chaos, 20, 3120. CrossRef
41.
Golestani, A., & Gras, R. (2011). Multifractal phenomena in EcoSim, a large scale individual-based ecosystem simulation. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 991–999), Las Vegas.
42.
Golestani, A., Gras, R. (2012). Identifying origin of self-similarity in EcoSim, an individual-based ecosystem simulation, using wavelet-based multifractal analysis. In Proceedings of the world congress on engineering and computer science 2012 (WCECS 2012) (pp. 1275–1285), San Francisco.
43.
Golestani, A., Gras, R., & Cristescu, M. (2012). Speciation with gene flow in a heterogeneous virtual world: Can physical obstacles accelerate speciation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 279, 3055–3064. CrossRef
44.
Grant, P. R., & Grant, B. R. (2006). Evolution of character displacement in Darwin’s finches. Science, 313, 224–226. CrossRef
45.
Gras, R., Devaurs, D., Wozniak, A., & Aspinall, A. (2009). An individual-based evolving predator-prey ecosystem simulation using a fuzzy cognitive map as the behavior model. Artif Life, 15, 423–463. CrossRef
46.
47.
Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., et al. (2006). A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecological Modelling, 198, 115–126. CrossRef
48.
Grimm, V., Berger, U., DeAngelis, D. L., et al. (2010). The ODD protocol: A review and first update. Ecological Modelling, 221, 2760–2768. CrossRef
49.
Grimm, V., Augusiak, J., Focks, A., et al. (2014). Towards better modelling and decision support: Documenting model development, testing, and analysis using TRACE. Ecological Modelling, 280, 129–139. CrossRef
50.
Hazlerigg, C. R. E., Tyler, C. R., Lorenzen, K., et al. (2014). Population relevance of toxicant mediated changes in sex ratio in fish: An assessment using an individual-based zebrafish (Danio rerio) model. Ecological Modelling, 280, 76–88. CrossRef
51.
Hamilton, E., & Frank, D. (2001). Can plants stimulate soil microbes and their own nutrient supply? Evidence from a grazing tolerant grass. Ecology, 82, 2397–2402. CrossRef
52.
Hartl, D. L., & Jones, E. W. (2004). Genetics: Analysis of genes and genomes. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
53.
Hemmingsen, A. M. (1960). Energy metabolism as related to body size and respiratory surfaces, and its evolution. Reports of the Steno Memorial Hospital and Nordisk Insulin Laboratorium, 9, 1–110.
54.
Hik, D. S., & Jefferies, R. L. (1990). Increases in the net aboveground primary production of a salt-marsh forage grass: A test of the predictions of the herbivore-optimization model. The Journal of Ecology, 78, 180–195. CrossRef
55.
56.
Hobbs, N. T. (1996). Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 60, 695–713. CrossRef
57.
Hoskin, C. J., Higgie, M., McDonald, K. R., & Moritz, C. (2005). Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation. Nature, 437, 1353. CrossRef
58.
Hraber, P. T., Jones, T., & Forrest, S. (1997). The ecology of Echo. Artificial Life, 3, 165–190. CrossRef
59.
Jasienska, G. (2003). Energy metabolism and the evolution of reproductive suppression in the human female. Acta Biotheoretica, 51, 1–8. CrossRef
60.
Kantz, H., & Schreiber, T. (1997). Nonlinear Time Series Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MATH
61.
Khater, M., Murariu, D., & Gras, R. (2014). Contemporary evolution and genetic change of prey as a response to predator removal. Ecological Informatics, 22, 13–22. CrossRef
62.
Khater, M., & Gras, R. (2012). Adaptation and genomic evolution in EcoSim. In T. Ziemke C. Balkenius, & J. Hallam (Eds) From Animals to Animats 12, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, SAB 2012, (pp. 219–229). Denmark: Odense.
63.
Kiltie, R. A. (2000). Scaling of visual acuity with body size in mammals and birds. Functional Ecology, 14, 226–234. CrossRef
64.
65.
Kleiber, M. (1961). The fire of Life. An introduction to animal energetics. New York: Wiley.
66.
Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 24, 65–75. CrossRef
67.
Krams, I., Krama, T., & Igaune, K. (2006). Mobbing behaviour: Reciprocity-based cooperation in breeding Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. IBIS, 148, 50–54. CrossRef
68.
Krams, I., Krama, T., Igaune, K., & Mnd, R. (2008). Experimental evidence of reciprocal altruism in the pied flycatcher. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 599–605. CrossRef
69.
Krebs, J., & Davies, N. (1997). Behavioural Ecology: An evolutionary approach (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
70.
Kvam, P., Cesario, J., & Schossau, J. et al. (2013). Computational Evolution of Decision-Making Strategies. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, & A. S. Warlaumont et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1225-1230), Austin, TX.
71.
LaBar, T., Hintze, A., & Adami, C. (2016). Evolvability tradeoffs in emergent digital replicators. Artificial Life, 22, 483–498. CrossRef
72.
Landguth, E. L., & Cushman, S. A. (2010). CDPOP: A spatially explicit cost distance population genetics program. Molecular Ecology Resources, 10, 156–161. CrossRef
73.
Landguth, E. L., Bearlin, A., Day, C. C., & Dunham, J. (2017). CDMetaPOP: An individual-based, eco-evolutionary model for spatially explicit simulation of landscape demogenetics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 4–11. CrossRef
74.
Lenski, R. E., Ofria, C., Collier, T. C., & Adami, C. (1999). Genome complexity, robustness and genetic interactions in digital organisms. Nature, 400, 661–664. CrossRef
75.
Lenski, R. E., Ofria, C., Pennock, R. T., & Adami, C. (2003). The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features. Nature, 423, 139–144. CrossRef
76.
Lewis, R. J., & Kappler, P. M. (2005). Seasonality, body condition, and timing of reproduction in Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi in the Kirindy Forest. Journal of the American Society of Primatologists, 67, 347–364.
77.
78.
Leonard, W. R., & Ulijaszek, S. J. (2002). Energetics and evolution: An emerging research domain. American Journal of Human Biology, 14, 547–550. CrossRef
79.
MacPherson, B., & Gras, R. (2016). Individual-based ecological models: Adjunctive tools or experimental systems? Ecological Modelling, 323, 106–114. CrossRef
80.
Mallet, J. (1995). A species definition for the modern synthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10, 294–299. CrossRef
81.
Marini, G., Guzzetta, G., Baldacchino, F., et al. (2017). The effect of interspecific competition on the temporal dynamics of Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens. Parasites & vectors, 10, 102.
82.
Marshall, J. A. (2016). What is inclusive fitness theory, and what is it for? Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 12, 103–108. CrossRef
83.
Mashayekhi, M., & Gras, R. (2012). Investigating the effect of spatial distribution and spatiotemporal information on speciation using individual-based ecosystem simulation. GSTF Journal on Computing, 2, 98–103.
84.
Mashayekhi, M., MacPherson, B., & Gras, R. (2014). Species-area relationship and a tentative interpretation of the function coefficients in an ecosystem simulation. Ecological Complexity, 19, 84–95. CrossRef
85.
Mashayekhi, M., MacPherson, B., & Gras, R. (2014). A machine learning approach to investigate the reasons behind species extinction. Ecological Informatics, 20, 58–66. CrossRef
86.
McNab, B. K. (2002). Minimizing energy expenditure facilitates vertebrate persistence on oceanic islands. Ecology Letters, 5, 693–704. CrossRef
87.
Mech, S. G., & Zollner, P. A. (2002). Using body size to predict perceptual range. Oikos, 98, 47–52. CrossRef
88.
Møller, A. P. (2009). Basal metabolic rate and risk-taking behaviour in birds. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22, 2420–2429. CrossRef
89.
Molvar, E. M., Bowyer, R. T., & Van Ballenberghe, V. (1993). Moose herbivory, browse quality, and nutrient cycling in an Alaskan treeline community. Oecol, 94, 473–479. CrossRef
90.
Mönkkönen, M., Forsman, J. T., & Bokma, F. (2006). Energy availability, abundance, energy-use and species richness in forest bird communities: A test of the species-energy theory. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15, 290–302.
91.
Mueller, P., & Diamond, J. (2001). Metabolic rate and environmental productivity: Well-provisioned animals evolved to run and idle fast. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 12550–12554. CrossRef
92.
Nagy, K. A. (2005). Field metabolic rate and body size. Journal of Experimental Biology, 208, 1621–1625. CrossRef
93.
Navarrete, A., van Schaik, C. P., & Isler, K. (2011). Energetics and the evolution of human brain size. Nature, 480, 91. CrossRef
94.
Niklas, K. J., & Enquist, B. J. (2001). Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 2922–2927. CrossRef
95.
Niven, J. E., & Laughlin, S. B. (2008). Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems. Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 1792–1804. CrossRef
96.
Nowak, M. A., Tarnita, C. E., & Wilson, E. O. (2010). The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 466, 1057–1062. CrossRef
97.
Ofria, C., & Wilke, C. O. (2004). Avida: A software platform for research in computational evolutionary biology. Artificial Life, 10, 191–229. CrossRef
98.
Olff, H., & Ritchie, M. E. (1998). Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13, 261–265. CrossRef
99.
100.
101.
Pafilis, P., Meiri, S., Foufopoulos, J., & Valakos, E. (2009). Intraspecific competition and high food availability are associated with insular gigantism in a lizard. Naturwissenschaften, 96, 1107–13. CrossRef
102.
Pedley, T. J. (1977). Scale effects in animal locomotion. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 53, 473–474.
103.
Peters, R. H. (1986). The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104.
Pethybridge, H., Roos, D., Loizeau, V., et al. (2013). Responses of European anchovy vital rates and population growth to environmental fluctuations: An individual-based modeling approach. Ecological Modelling, 250, 370–383. CrossRef
105.
Piana, P. A., Gomes, L. C., & Agostinho, A. A. (2006). Comparison of predator-prey interaction models for fish assemblages from the neotropical region. Ecological Modelling, 192, 259–270. CrossRef
106.
Potier, S., Bonadonna, F., Kelber, A., et al. (2016). Visual abilities in two raptors with different ecology. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 219, 2639–2649. CrossRef
107.
Prothero, J. W. (1979). Maximal oxygen consumption in various animals and plants. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology—Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 64, 463–466. CrossRef
108.
Ray, T.S. (1991). An approach to the synthesis of life. In C. Langton, C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer, & S. Ras-mussen (Eds.), Proceedings of Artificial Life II (pp. 371–408), Redwood City: Addison-Wesley
109.
Ricotta, C. (2000). From theoretical ecology to statistical physics and back: Self-similar landscape metrics as a synthesis of ecological diversity and geometrical complexity. Ecological Modelling, 125, 245–253. CrossRef
110.
Rutowski, R. L., Gisln, L., & Warrant, E. J. (2009). Visual acuity and sensitivity increase allometrically with body size in butterflies. Arthropod Structure & Development, 38, 91–100. CrossRef
111.
Safi, K., Seid, M. A., & Dechmann, D. K. N. (2005). Bigger is not always better: when brains get smaller. Biology Letters, 1, 283–286. CrossRef
112.
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1984). Scaling: Why is animal size so important?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
113.
Schmolke, A., Thorbek, P., DeAngelis, D. L., & Grimm, V. (2010). Ecological models supporting environmental decision making: A strategy for the future. Trends Ecology Evolution, 25, 479–486. CrossRef
114.
Seuront, L., Schmitt, F., Lagadeuc, Y., et al. (1996). Multifractal analysis of phytoplankton biomass and temperature in the ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 3591–3594. CrossRef
115.
Shepherd, G. M. (1994). Neurobiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
116.
Stahl, W. R. R. (1965). Organ weights in primates and other mammals. Science, 150, 1039–1042. CrossRef
117.
Stahl, W. R. R. (1967). Scaling of respiratory variables in mammals. Journal of Applied Physiology, 22, 453–460. CrossRef
118.
Stephens, D., & Krebs, J. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
119.
Strauss, S. Y., Lau, J. A., & Carroll, S. P. (2006). Evolutionary responses of natives to introduced species: what do introductions tell us about natural communities? Ecology Letters, 9, 357–374. CrossRef
120.
Svanbck, R., & Bolnick, D. I. (2007). Intraspecific competition drives increased resource use diversity within a natural population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 274, 839–844. CrossRef
121.
Svanbck, R., Eklöv, P., Fransson, R., & Holmgren, K. (2008). Intraspecific competition drives multiple species resource polymorphism in fish communities. Oikos, 117, 114–124. CrossRef
122.
Thearling, K., & Ray, T. (1994). Evolving multi-cellular artificial life. In P. Maes (Ed.), Brooks RA (pp. 283–288). MIT Press, Cambridge p: Proceedings of Artificial Life IV.
123.
124.
Uchmaski, J. (2016). Individual variability and metapopulation dynamics: An individual-based model. Ecological Modelling, 334, 8–18. CrossRef
125.
Van der Wal, R., Bardgett, R. D., Harrison, K. A., & Stien, A. (2004). Vertebrate herbivores and ecosystem control: Cascading effects of faeces on tundra ecosystems. Ecography, 27, 242–252. CrossRef
126.
Wardle, D. A. (2002). Communities and Ecosystems: Linking Aboveground and Belowground Components. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
127.
Wheeler, P.E. (1984). An investigation of some aspects of the transition from ectothermic to endothermic metabolism in vertebrates. Durham University.
128.
129.
Yaeger, L. (1994). Computational genetics, physiology, metabolism, neural systems, learning, vision, and behavior or PolyWorld: life in a new context. In Proceedings of Artificial Life III, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (Vol. 17, pp. 263–298), Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.
130.
131.
132.
Metadata
Title
EcoSim, an Enhanced Artificial Ecosystem: Addressing Deeper Behavioral, Ecological, and Evolutionary Questions
Authors
Ryan Scott
Brian MacPherson
Robin Gras
Copyright Year
2019
Book
Cognitive Architectures

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97549-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-97550-4

Copyright Year: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97550-4_14

Premium Partners

in-adhesives MKVS Hellmich GmbH Krahn Ceramics
    Image Credits

    Version: 0.2067.0