Back

'Loop tracing' feedback reveals mechanisms that drive instabilities in resource-host-parasite dynamics

Forbes, E. J.; Hall, S. R.

2026-03-19 ecology
10.64898/2026.03.17.712361 bioRxiv
Show abstract

How and why do species interactions produce unstable dynamics? In the simplest models, the answers are straightforward. In the Rosenzweig-MacArthur predator-prey model, resource self-facilitation due to predation mortality triggers oscillations; in Lotka-Volterra competition, positive feedback from stronger interspecific competition underlies alternative states. However, when unstable dynamics arise with three or more species, how and why answers become more opaque. We propose that dissection of feedback loops, chains of direct species interactions, can answer these questions in meso-scale models. To demonstrate, we disentangle instabilities in epidemics using three variations of a general yet mechanistic resource-host-parasite model. Resources introduce destabilizing self-facilitation but also positive interspecific direct effects on propagule production and transmission rate. Those direct effects then produce instabilities through feedback loops. First, we trace how resource self-facilitation catalyzes oscillations by weakening faster, shorter, lower levels of feedback relative to longer, slower feedback of the whole system. Then, we show how resource-dependent propagule yield introduces positive cascade fueling feedback, creating an Allee threshold inhibiting invasion of parasites. In a third variant, we traced how both resource-dependent components produced those unstable dynamics and more complex behaviors, including a period-doubling route to chaos to which we apply a form of loop tracing. Hence, we show how and why direct, positive effects of resources modulate feedbacks underlying oscillations, Allee effects, and more during epidemics. We propose that loop tracing, a generally applicable method, could empower ecologists to glean much deeper insight into dynamics of species interactions.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 2%
17.0%
2
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 3%
9.8%
4
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
9.8%
5
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 4%
7.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.6%
7
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.2%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.2%
9
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
10
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
11
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.0%
12
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
13
Physical Review X
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Theoretical Ecology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
16
Ecology
70 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
17
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.3%
18
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
20
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
21
Oikos
74 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
22
Physical Review Research
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
23
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.6%