The focus of most ideas on diversity maintenance is species coexistence, which may be stable or unstable. Stable coexistence can be quantified by the long-term rates at which community members recover from low density. Quantification shows that coexistence mechanisms function in two major ways: They may be (a) equalizing because they tend to minimize average fitness differences between species, or (b) stabilizing because they tend to increase negative intraspecific interactions relative to negative interspecific interactions. Stabilizing mechanisms are essential for species coexistence and include traditional mechanisms such as resource partitioning and frequency-dependent predation, as well as mechanisms that depend on fluctuations in population densities and environmental factors in space and time. Equalizing mechanisms contribute to stable coexistence because they reduce large average fitness inequalities which might negate the effects of stabilizing mechanisms. Models of unstable coexitence, in which species diversity slowly decays over time, have focused almost exclusively on equalizing mechanisms. These models would be more robust if they also included stabilizing mechanisms, which arise in many and varied ways but need not be adequate for full stability of a system. Models of unstable coexistence invite a broader view of diversity maintenance incorporating species turnover.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Harsh conditions (e.g., mortality and stress) reduce population growth rates directly; secondarily, they may reduce the intensity of interactions between organisms. Near-exclusive focus on the secondary effect of these forms of harshness has led ecologists to believe that they reduce the importance of ecological interactions, such as competition, and favor coexistence of even ecologically very similar species. By examining both the costs and the benefits, we show that harshness alone does not lessen the importance of species interactions or limit their role in community structure. Species coexistence requires niche differences, and harshness does not in itself make coexistence more likely. Fluctuations in environmental conditions (e.g., disturbance, seasonal change, and weather variation) also have been regarded as decreasing species interactions and favoring coexistence, but we argue that coexistence can only be favored when fluctuations create spatial or temporal niche opportunities. We argue that important diversity-promoting roles for harsh and fluctuating conditions depend on deviations from the assumptions of additive effects and linear dependencies most commonly found in ecological models. Such considerations imply strong roles for species interactions in the diversity of a community.

This review discusses the interface between two of the most important types of interactions between species, interspecific competition and predation. Predation has been claimed to increase, decrease, or have little effect on, the strength, impact or importance of interspecific competition. There is confusion about both the meaning of these terms and the likelihood of, and conditions required for, each of these outcomes. In this article we distinguish among three measures of the influence of predation on competitive outcomes: short-term per capita consumption or growth rates, long-term changes in density, and the probability of competitive coexistence. We then outline various theoretical mechanisms that can lead to qualitatively distinct effects of predators. The qualitative effect of predators can depend both on the mechanism of competition and on the definition of competitive strength/impact. In assessing the empirical literature, we ask: (1) What definitions of competitive strength/impact have been assumed? (2) Does strong evidence exist to support one or more of the possible mechanisms that can produce a given outcome? (3) Do biases in the choice of organism or manipulation exist, and are they likely to have influenced the conclusions reached? We conclude by discussing several unanswered questions, and espouse a stronger interchange between empirical and theoretical approaches to this important question.

Arid environments are characterized by limited and variable rainfall that supplies resources in pulses. Resource pulsing is a special form of environmental variation, and the general theory of coexistence in variable environments suggests specific mechanisms by which rainfall variability might contribute to the maintenance of high species diversity in arid ecosystems. In this review, we discuss physiological, morphological, and life-history traits that facilitate plant survival and growth in strongly water-limited variable environments, outlining how species differences in these traits may promote diversity. Our analysis emphasizes that the variability of pulsed environments does not reduce the importance of species interactions in structuring communities, but instead provides axes of ecological differentiation between species that facilitate their coexistence. Pulses of rainfall also influence higher trophic levels and entire food webs. Better understanding of how rainfall affects the diversity, species composition, and dynamics of arid environments can contribute to solving environmental problems stemming from land use and global climate change.