Bornean Synchrony Model

This individual-​​based computer model attempts to simulate some of the hypoth­e­sized dynamics driving syn­chro­nized fruit masting in Bornean dipte­ro­carp trees. This remark­able bio­log­ical phe­nom­enon, called by some “the heart­beat of Borneo”, has been studied by Janzen, Curran, Cannon and other for many years. Their research has hypoth­e­sized and gathered evidence for a fas­ci­nating network of inter­ac­tions between multiple tree species and their seed preda­tors, such as birds and wild boars, all appar­ently trig­gered in some way by ENSO events.

Agent-​​based models (ABM) provide an arena in which to extend proposed con­cep­tual mech­a­nisms into a log­i­cally defined sim­u­la­tion space, pro­viding an oppor­tu­nity to test the hypo­thet­ical impli­ca­tions, strengths and lim­i­ta­tions of those mech­a­nisms. ABM are in effect a sort of highly rigorous thought exper­i­ment. Inspired by the Curran et al’s fas­ci­nating research, I wanted to see if an ABM model of the individual-​​to-​​individual inter­ac­tions they proposed would readily yield the system-​​level phe­nom­enon they described. I also wanted to use the model as a con­cep­tual petri dish to ask some ques­tions such as: how impor­tant is the degree of fruiting syn­chrony to the final pop­u­la­tions of dif­ferent species?

Running the Program

Online Version (2mb Java applet)

The applet is java-​​based and may a minute to load.

Stand-​​alone Code (20kb NetLogo code text)

To run the code version, install a copy of NetLogo on your computer, run it and open the borneo.mar15.nlogo file you down­loaded from the above link.

Documentation

Status of the Model (80kb .pdf)

Extracts:

1 System overview

Synchronization of repro­duc­tive events has long been observed across many species of dipte­ro­carp trees in South East Asia [e.g. Janzen, 1974]. These repro­duc­tive events are discrete and infre­quent. Their timing has been infor­mally asso­ci­ated with El Niño-​​Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. Community-​​wide par­tic­i­pa­tion in a shared demo­graphic process is unusual, and it has been proposed that the selec­tive mech­a­nism driving this syn­chrony is a form of seed predator sati­a­tion. According to this hypoth­esis, syn­chro­nized, infre­quent “fruit masts” benefit the fruit pro­ducers by limiting fru­ti­vore pop­u­la­tions in between masts, and sati­ating the reduced pop­u­la­tions during the mast. In this way more fruit escapes pre­da­tion and yields greater recruit­ment, averaged over time, than would be possibly given unsyn­chro­nized fruit pro­duc­tion [Janzen, 1976, Curran and Leighton, 2000]. Fruit-​​eating ver­te­brates have been observed to respond to fruit masts by large-​​scale migra­tion and feeding. This spatially-​​extended, multi-​​trophic cascade has been described as “the heart­beat of Borneo” [Lansing, 2006] .

Subsequent work by Lisa Curran and col­leagues has estab­lished a more robust empir­ical basis to assess these hypotheses, specif­i­cally with regard to the species present in Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan Province, Indonesian Borneo. Curran and col­leagues made direct field obser­va­tions of over 2000 indi­vidual dipte­ro­carps spread across 7 envi­ron­mental zones for 68 months [Cannon et al., 2007]. Their data con­clu­sively demon­strated that the supraan­nual fruit masts are sta­tis­ti­cally cor­re­lated with ENSO climate events [Curran et al., 1999]. They also gen­er­ated sub­stan­tial sup­portive data for the predator sati­a­tion hypoth­esis, and made refined con­clu­sions regarding the spatial and temporal inter­ac­tions of the fruiting trees and their seed predators.

4 Observed Scenarios

The model’s behavior has not been formally char­ac­ter­ized, and the ques­tions posed have not been answered (although in some cases there are sug­ges­tive initial results). What follows are some typical sce­narios which have been infor­mally observed.

Tree pop­u­la­tions are more suc­cessful given pulsed cues

By setting the cue strengths care­fully, it is possible to mean­ing­fully compare the effects of pulsed and unpulsed cues on the tree pop­u­la­tions. First the model is run in pulsed mode, with a given fre­quency of pulses. The model can be re-​​run as many times as nec­es­sary to char­ac­terize the behavior. Then, the model can be set to run unpulsed, with the cue strength set to 1/(the pulsed cue fre­quency). I.e., to compare the results of unpulsed cues with cues pulsed every 10 time steps, the unpulsed cue strength is set to 0.1. In this way, the total amount of repro­duc­tive poten­tial is held constant between the pulsed and unpulsed runs (recall that at each pulse, the repro­duc­tive chance is 1, plus or minus some noise).

The results of these com­par­a­tive tests are clear: for a given param­e­triza­tion, tree pop­u­la­tions will nearly always be much more suc­cessful when cues are pulsed. For a quick and con­vincing test of this, try switching on pulsed cues mid-​​run, without adjusting any other parameters.

When cues are pulsed, the tree pop­u­la­tions will typ­i­cally climb to a periodic steady state and remain stable across a wide range of demo­graphic param­e­triza­tion. Parrot pop­u­la­tions are typ­i­cally less stable under this scenario, and sus­b­stan­tially lower.

Feeding creates spatial segregation

When cues are unpulsed, fru­ti­vores will ini­tially dominate, and extir­pate the trees from center of the world. Once the only remaining trees are those on edge patches, the pop­u­la­tion of fru­ti­vores will decline, and then remain rel­a­tively steady at lower levels. Typically the parrots will move as a pack, serially among the spa­tially seg­re­gated patches. In this way, each patch has a chance to recover somewhat in between feeding sessions. Particularly when there is more than two patches estab­lished early, this dynamic can persist for many generations.

Separation of cues drives spatial segregation

The com­pu­ta­tion require­ments of high tree pop­u­la­tions have pre­cluded much inves­ti­ga­tion into this phe­nom­enon, but it appears that when cues are decou­pled tem­po­rally, the two tree species will also seg­re­gate spa­tially. This must be a result of feeding movement, but beyond that a unequiv­ocal mech­a­nism is not imme­di­ately obvious. This is a par­tic­u­larly inter­esting phe­nom­enon worth further inves­ti­ga­tion.