Pattern Formation

Spatial Rock-Paper-Scissors

Three species, each eating the next in a cycle. Locally one always invades another — yet globally the chase curls into rotating spirals and nobody ever wins.

Each color is a species; each cell is invaded by a neighbor that dominates it. Watch the random soup organize itself into interlocking spiral waves. Raise the speed to make the spirals turn faster, switch to 5 species for finer texture, or re-randomize and watch order re-form from noise. The population fractions (below the canvas) hover near equal as the spirals churn.

What you're seeing

A grid of cells, each occupied by one of three species — call them teal, amber, and orchid. They stand in a cycle of dominance, exactly like the children's game: teal beats amber, amber beats orchid, orchid beats teal. There is no strongest species; each one is both a predator and prey. At every microstep a cell looks at a random neighbor, and if that neighbor's species dominates it, the cell is invaded and converts.

Locally the rule is brutally simple and one-sided: a stronger neighbor always wins that encounter. But step back and the local invasions don't sum to a winner. They organize into rotating spiral waves — fronts of teal chasing amber chasing orchid chasing teal, curled around pivot points. Because each species is forever pursuing the one it beats while fleeing the one that beats it, the chase closes on itself and all three coexist indefinitely. No species is ever driven extinct. That coexistence is the emergent fact; no cell intends it.

The rule

The dynamics are about as bare as a spatial model gets:

Contrast this with non-cyclic competition. If one species simply beat both others, there would be no game: the strongest would sweep the board and the other two would vanish — a winner-take-all monoculture. Cyclic dominance removes the top of the food chain. Strength is relative and circular, so victory is never final.

The optional 5 species rule is rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock: each species beats the next two in the cycle and loses to the other two. It is still non-transitive, just finer-grained, and produces smaller, busier spirals.

Why it matters

Cyclic dominance is a general mechanism for coexistence — for how competition that would be winner-take-all can instead maintain diversity. The crucial ingredient is that the competition is spatial. In a well-mixed soup, where everyone interacts with everyone, a rock-paper-scissors system drifts: random fluctuations eventually knock one species out, and once one is gone the cycle collapses (with two species left, one simply beats the other). But on a lattice, a species can only fight its immediate neighbors. Local structure shelters the loser of any encounter elsewhere on the grid, the spirals keep the three species spatially separated, and the whole system becomes stable. Space turns a fragile cycle into a durable coexistence — at least while mixing stays limited. Reichenbach and colleagues showed there is a critical mobility: let the species wander and intermix too freely and the spirals grow larger than the arena itself, one species wins, and diversity collapses again. Coexistence lives in a window.

The spirals are the visible signature of this stabilization. They are the same kind of traveling wave seen in other excitable media — the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, cardiac tissue — here driven by ecological invasion rather than chemistry.

In the wild

Unlike many toy models, cyclic dominance has been documented in real living systems:

The lattice model on this page is a caricature of these systems, not a literal simulation of any one of them. Its value is to show that the qualitative outcome — coexistence through spatial, cyclic competition — falls out of almost nothing.

Try this

References

  1. Sinervo, B. & Lively, C. M. (1996). "The rock–paper–scissors game and the evolution of alternative male strategies." Nature 380, 240–243.
  2. Kerr, B., Riley, M. A., Feldman, M. W., Bohannan, B. J. M. (2002). "Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors." Nature 418, 171–174.
  3. Reichenbach, T., Mobilia, M., Frey, E. (2007). "Mobility promotes and jeopardizes biodiversity in rock–paper–scissors games." Nature 448, 1046–1049.