Chesson's coexistence theory

Barabás, György; D’Andrea, Rafael; Stump, Simon Maccracken

doi:10.1002/ecm.1302

Cited by 296 publications

(520 citation statements)

References 117 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

514

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the use of classic coexistence models for empirically predicting species competitive outcomes at naturally occurring higher levels of diversity (with more than two species) is limited due to higher-order interactions that become more complex across increasing levels of species richness (Levine et al 2017, Barab as et al 2018). In other words, the null hypothesis of PG is circular as it defines a biodiversity effect as proof of no effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not even wrong: Comment by Wagg et al.

Wagg

Barry

O’Brien

et al. 2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not even wrong: Comment by Wagg et al.

Wagg

Barry

O’Brien

et al. 2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The relative strengths of intraspecific and interspecific limitation must be evaluated relative to the ratio of intrinsic rates of increase of competing species (MacArthur , May , Chesson , , Barabás et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These three scenarios clearly illustrate that the relative strengths of the Lotka‐Volterra coefficients cannot simply be compared in isolation: The ratios of competition coefficients relative to the ratio of the intrinsic growth rates must be compared to evaluate coexistence in the Lotka‐Volterra competition framework (May , Chesson , , Barabás et al. ).…”

Section: Recasting These Models Into Lotka‐volterra Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms influencing the coexistence of multiple consumers and multiple resources: resource and apparent competition

McPeek

2018

Ecological Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactions among multiple resources and consumers involve two indirect interactions: resource competition among consumers and apparent competition among resources. However, competition among multiple consumers is typically viewed through the lens of direct interactions embodied in the Lotka‐Volterra competition model, which fails to capture the mechanisms of these indirect interactions. In this paper, I analyze various elaborations of MacArthur's and Tilman's original consumer–resource models including more than two species per trophic level, saturating functional responses, and direct intraspecific density dependence within the consumers. First, the simplest model with two resources and two consumers with linear functional responses is analyzed via the structure of the resulting isoclines, and this is reconciled with Tilman's graphical ZNGI/consumption vector approach. With three species at each trophic level even in this simple model, each consumer is not required to have the largest impact on the resource that most limits its growth for multiple consumers to coexist. In fact, a consumer that is an inferior competitor on each resource in isolation may still coexist with superior competitors, and conversely a consumer that is an inferior competitor on each available resource may still be able to drive all other consumers extinct. However, the maximum number of coexisting consumers is set by the number of available resources. Saturating functional responses do not qualitatively alter the conditions for multiple consumers and resources to coexist at a stable point equilibrium but do increase the range of apparent competitive abilities for resources that can invade and coexist. Saturating functional responses also increase the range of dynamics that the community may display (i.e., limit cycles and chaos), which previous analyses have shown can permit more consumer species than resources to coexist. Adding direct intraspecific density dependence in the consumers, either in the form of feeding interference or density‐dependent demographic rates, permit more consumers to coexist than available resources, even at stable point equilibria. Understanding the indirect effects that cascade through a community is essential to predicting community changes and understanding how species at multiple trophic levels coexist, and these indirect effects should not be shrouded behind the curtain of Lotka‐Volterra competition.

show abstract

“…Modern coexistence theory provides a general method to quantify the stabilizing and equalizing components of coexistence for a variety of models (Chesson , Barabás et al., ). The formulas for these components in the Lotka‐Volterra model of competition (Chesson , , Chesson and Kuang ) can be used in cases where environmental variability is not the primary focus.…”

Section: Modeling Plant–soil Microbe Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of soil microbes on plant competition: a perspective from modern coexistence theory

Wan

2019

Ecological Monographs

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ETH Z€ urich, 8092 Z€ urich, Switzerland Citation: Ke, P.-J., and J. Wan. 2020. Effects of soil microbes on plant competition: a perspective from modern coexistence theory. Ecological Monographs 90(1):Abstract. Growing evidence shows that soil microbes affect plant coexistence in a variety of systems. However, since these systems vary in the impacts microbes have on plants and in the ways plants compete with each other, it is challenging to integrate results into a general predictive theory. To this end, we suggest that the concepts of niche and fitness difference from modern coexistence theory should be used to contextualize how soil microbes contribute to plant coexistence. Synthesizing a range of mechanisms under a general plant-soil microbe interaction model, we show that, depending on host specificity, both pathogens and mutualists can affect the niche difference between competing plants. However, we emphasize the need to also consider the effect of soil microbes on plant fitness differences, a role often overlooked when examining their role in plant coexistence. Additionally, since our framework predicts that soil microbes modify the importance of plant-plant competition relative to other factors for determining the outcome of competition, we suggest that experimental work should simultaneously quantify microbial effects and plant competition. Thus, we propose experimental designs that efficiently measure both processes and show how our framework can be applied to identify the underlying drivers of coexistence. Using an empirical case study, we demonstrate that the processes driving coexistence can be counterintuitive, and that our general predictive framework provides a better way to identify the true processes through which soil microbes affect coexistence.

show abstract

Chesson's coexistence theory

Cited by 296 publications

References 117 publications

Not even wrong: Comment by Wagg et al.

Not even wrong: Comment by Wagg et al.

Mechanisms influencing the coexistence of multiple consumers and multiple resources: resource and apparent competition

Effects of soil microbes on plant competition: a perspective from modern coexistence theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About