2004
DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0101:cafed]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Competitive and Facilitative Evolutionary Diversification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
111
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
1
111
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although both R and especially W remain at low frequency because of their slow growth rates (Figure 2) and because of their lesser final productivity (Figure 5a), their greatly increased biofilm production facilitate much greater attachment of S (Figures 3 and 6) and each other to the polystyrene bead. Such dynamics may therefore be viewed as one of succession enabled by niche construction (Odling-Smee et al, 2003), although it is plausible that the initial invasions by biofilm specialists were driven by competition or tolerance more than facilitation (Connell and Slatyer, 1977;Day and Young, 2004). Odum (1975) pointed out that the well-recognized phenomenon of ecological succession can be propelled by the processes of community residents themselves, including their evolved progeny, or by changing external abiotic conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although both R and especially W remain at low frequency because of their slow growth rates (Figure 2) and because of their lesser final productivity (Figure 5a), their greatly increased biofilm production facilitate much greater attachment of S (Figures 3 and 6) and each other to the polystyrene bead. Such dynamics may therefore be viewed as one of succession enabled by niche construction (Odling-Smee et al, 2003), although it is plausible that the initial invasions by biofilm specialists were driven by competition or tolerance more than facilitation (Connell and Slatyer, 1977;Day and Young, 2004). Odum (1975) pointed out that the well-recognized phenomenon of ecological succession can be propelled by the processes of community residents themselves, including their evolved progeny, or by changing external abiotic conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accurately identifying regions where coevolutionary selection is operating is critical to evaluating the importance of these coevolutionary hot spots for the overall dynamics of geographically structured coevolution (Thompson 1997(Thompson , 2005Gomulkiewicz et al 2000;Brodie et al 2002). In addition, identifying regimes of disruptive selection due to coevolutionary interactions can be important for studying processes of adaptive diversification and sympatric speciation (Doebeli and Dieckmann 2000;Day and Young 2004;Dieckmann et al 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among juvenile bull sharks, limited productivity within the Shark River Estuary apparently leads to heightened intraspecific competition within the nursery that could drive the observed considerable degree of individual differences in trophic interactions , as has been observed in other systems (e.g. Smith & Skukason 1996;Day & Young 2004;Pfennig et al, 2007). As such, limited productivity in the Shark River Estuary may drive the individual differences in movement tactics and foraging decisions observed during this study and heterogeneity in trajectories through ontogenetic shifts.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%