Extinction in Multispecies and Spatially Explicit Models of Habitat Destruction

Klausmeier,

doi:10.2307/2463493

Cited by 9 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Coexistence is achieved because competitively superior species are so limited by colonization that they can only occupy a fraction of available habitats, leaving space for more poorly competing, but better colonizing, species. The conditions for coexistence under this mechanism (Holmes and Wilson 1998;Geritz et al 1999;Kinzig et al 1999;Adler and Mosquera 2000;Yu and Wilson 2001) and its implications for species sensitivity to habitat destruction Kareiva and Wennergren 1995;Banks 1997;Klausmeier 1998) have been the focus of numerous studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence and Relative Abundance in Annual Plant Assemblages: The Roles of Competition and Colonization

Levine

Rees²

2002

The American Naturalist

169

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article: Levine, J.M. and Rees, M. (2002) Coexistence and relative abundance in annual plant assemblages: The roles of competition and colonization. American Naturalist, 160 (4). pp. [452][453][454][455][456][457][458][459][460][461][462][463][464][465][466][467] eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. abstract: Although an interspecific trade-off between competitive and colonizing ability can permit multispecies coexistence, whether this mechanism controls the structure of natural systems remains unresolved. We used models to evaluate the hypothesized importance of this trade-off for explaining coexistence and relative abundance patterns in annual plant assemblages. In a nonspatial model, empirically derived competition-colonization trade-offs related to seed mass were insufficient to generate coexistence. This was unchanged by spatial structure or interspecific variation in the fraction of seeds dispersing globally. These results differ from those of the more generalized competition-colonization models because the latter assume completely asymmetric competition, an assumption that appears unrealistic considering existing data for annual systems. When, for heuristic purposes, completely asymmetric competition was incorporated into our models, unlimited coexistence was possible. However, in the resulting abundance patterns, the best competitors/poorest colonizers were the most abundant, the opposite of that observed in natural systems. By contrast, these natural patterns were produced by competition-colonization models where environmental heterogeneity permitted species coexistence. Thus, despite the failure of the simple competition-colonization trade-off to explain coexistence in annual plant systems, this trade-off may be essential to explaining relative abundance patterns when other processes permit coexistence.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence and Relative Abundance in Annual Plant Assemblages: The Roles of Competition and Colonization

Levine

Rees²

2002

The American Naturalist

169

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A new equilibrium will be reached with certain quasi-periodical oscillations, which probably come from the responses to habitat destruction and the nonlinear interactions among competitors. Habitat destruction will decrease the equilibrium abundances of odd-ranked competitors, but increase the equilibrium abundances of even-ranked ones (Klausmeier 1998;Lin 2003). The poorer species is, the higher the fluctuation amplitude of abundance is, and the more susceptive species is to stochastic extinction (Bascompte and Solé 1996).…”

Section: Simulations For Instantaneous Destructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ever-accelerating rates of human-caused habitat destruction make the study about the response of ecosystems to habitat destruction more important, and urge the development of the theoretical and field studies. To fulfill the need, many theoretical models have been set up, which mostly are the following two kinds: spatially implicit models such as Levins-like models (Nee and May 1992;Tilman et al 1994Tilman et al , 1997Bascompte and Solé 1998;Neuhauser 1998;Swihart et al 2001;Lin 2003) and spatially explicit models such as incidence functions (Hanski 1994) and cellular automata (Dythan 1995; Bascompte and Solé 1996;Klausmeier 1998;Malanson 2002;Solé et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of Metapopulation Dynamics to Two Different Kinds of Habitat Destruction Caused by Human Activities

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat destruction can be classified into instantaneous destruction and continuous destruction by the different ways of human destroying habitat. Previous studies, however, always focused on instantaneous destruction. In this study, we develop a universal model, Multitime scale N-species model, to study and compare the responses of metapopulation dynamics to both kinds of habitat destruction. The model explores that: (1) under instantaneous habitat destruction, species extinction is determined by the proportion of habitat destruction (D) and the structure of metapopulation (q). When D>q, species will go extinct ranked from the best competitor to the worst. When D£ q, no species will go extinct, but the equilibrium abundances of odd-ranked competitors will decrease, and the equilibrium abundances of even-ranked competitors will increase; (2) under continuous destruction, species extinction is dependent on the speed of habitat destruction and the metapopulation structure. The higher the speed of habitat destruction and the bigger q are, the earlier species go extinct. Usually, there are two possible mechanisms of species extinction: one is that all species go extinct collectively following complete destruction, and the other is that species go extinct in ranked competitive order from best to worst, and the survivals, if they exist, will go extinct collectively following complete destruction. The oscillation amplitudes of inferior competitors are so large as to increase the probability of stochastic extinction under instantaneous destruction. Therefore, it is relatively propitious for the persistence of rare species under slow and continuous destruction, especially when continuous destruction stops.

show abstract

“…They examined a checkerboard pattern and a single large patch in an essentially infinite sea of nonhabitat. Klausmeier (1998), Neuhauser (1998), andMalanson (2001) also examined spatial patterns of destruction and dispersal distance. These analyses showed that spatial clumping of habitat improves the advantage to superior competitors in the model.…”

Section: Space In Extinction Debt Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Representations of Habitat in Competition‐Colonization Models

Malanson¹

2002

Geographical Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological models with species differentiated b y competition and colonization traitsAlthough the damage done to ecosystems where habitat is destroyed may be total, considerable attention has been focused on remnants of habitat within a matrix of destruction. One type of model indicates that some extant species in remnants of habitat are doomed to eventual extinction; an "extinction debt" exists (Tilman et al. 1994). There is a lag, or relaxation time, between when a piece of habitat becomes a remnant due to surrounding habitat destruction and the time when resident species becomes locally extinct (cf. MacArthur 1972, Fig. 5-20); this lag could vary from the remaining life span of an organism to multiple generations. The extinction debt Bart Cramer did much of the original pro ramming at the Department of Geography, Universi of Iowa. An anonymous reviewer made many hefpfiil comments and suggested the interpretation baseaion variance.George P. Malanson is a professor of geography at the Univer.sity of lowa.

show abstract

Extinction in Multispecies and Spatially Explicit Models of Habitat Destruction

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Coexistence and Relative Abundance in Annual Plant Assemblages: The Roles of Competition and Colonization

Coexistence and Relative Abundance in Annual Plant Assemblages: The Roles of Competition and Colonization

Responses of Metapopulation Dynamics to Two Different Kinds of Habitat Destruction Caused by Human Activities

Spatial Representations of Habitat in Competition‐Colonization Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About