← The collection

Paradox of Enrichment.

Increase prey carrying capacity and compare stable coexistence with predator–prey oscillations.

Interactive experimentintuitiveField note ·
INTERACTIVE EXPERIMENT / M30

Paradox of Enrichment

Increase prey carrying capacity and compare stable coexistence with predator–prey oscillations.

TEST THE MECHANISM

A predator consumes prey at a saturating rate. Increase prey carrying capacity and watch both populations. More available resources can destabilise coexistence in this model.

16
0.01.02.0
Rosenzweig–MacArthur population indices · Scale 0.0 to 2.0 · 0 model time unitsPreyPredator
Time simulated
0
Last-quarter prey minimum
0.700
Last-quarter prey maximum
0.700

Prey growth rate is 1, handling constant 1, predator conversion 0.5 and mortality 0.2. The coexistence equilibrium loses local stability above K = 7/3. There is no extinction threshold or real species calibration.

Deterministic teaching populations use fixed parameters and numerical integration; no real species forecast or extinction threshold is supplied.

THE SHORT VERSION

Paradox of Enrichment, explained.

The paradox of enrichment is the possibility that increasing resource availability destabilises a consumer–resource system instead of simply improving its stability.

01 / THE MECHANISM

Why it happens

A Rosenzweig–MacArthur model combines logistic prey growth with saturating predation. Growth, handling, conversion and mortality parameters are fixed; increasing carrying capacity above 7/3 destabilises the coexistence equilibrium for these values.

The paradox of enrichment is the possibility that increasing resource availability destabilises a consumer–resource system instead of simply improving its stability.

Read the result

Late-window minima and maxima describe the displayed trajectory. A low numerical population is not an extinction event in this deterministic model.

02 / FOLLOW IT THROUGH

A worked example

Enrich a predator–prey system

  1. Run carrying capacity one point five for two hundred model time units and inspect late population variation.

  2. Increase capacity to six and restart from the same prey and predator indices to expose larger sustained oscillations.

  3. Compare the late-window prey range and identify the saturating predation feedback rather than assuming more resources guarantee stability.

OPTIONAL DEEPER DETAILGo deeper: inside the model

Inside this model

A Rosenzweig–MacArthur model combines logistic prey growth with saturating predation. Growth, handling, conversion and mortality parameters are fixed; increasing carrying capacity above 7/3 destabilises the coexistence equilibrium for these values.

03 / BEYOND THE EXPERIMENT

Where this idea is useful

A practical use

Assess feedback and variability before assuming that increasing resources always reduces the risk of a population trough.

CHECK YOUR INTUITION

A common misconception

THE TEMPTING CONCLUSION

“More available food always stabilises every population.”

THE MORE USEFUL DISTINCTION

In some consumer–resource systems, enrichment amplifies delayed interactions and destabilises coexistence. This is conditional, not a universal ecological law.

What this explanation leaves out

  • Deterministic teaching populations use fixed parameters and numerical integration; no real species forecast or extinction threshold is supplied.
ONE MORE QUESTION

Where does the threshold seven-thirds come from?

It is the local stability boundary for the fixed growth, handling, conversion and mortality values in this particular Rosenzweig–MacArthur model.

TAKE THE IDEA WITH YOU

Could improving an average resource level worsen the system’s lowest trough?

Associated thinkers

Associated withMichael Rosenzweig ↗

Associations marked provisional are awaiting source review.

Further reading

Explore the original research or the teaching reference behind this experiment.