Reduction of species coexistence through mixing in a spatial competition model

Yitbarek, Senay; Vandermeer, John

doi:10.1007/s12080-017-0341-4

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…). This corresponds well to the implicit mathematical assumption made in models ignoring spatial relationships that all individuals of one species can interact with all individuals of other species in the same community (Yitbarek and Vandermeer ). The picture changes if we assume terrestrial organisms and in particular sessile ones, which only experience local neighborhoods consisting of a few individuals, for example, trees in forests (Fischer et al.…”

Section: Wanted: Neglected Principles In Coexistence Theorysupporting

confidence: 62%

“…) and founder (van Gestel et al. ) or simply chance effects (Yitbarek and Vandermeer ). In particular, when populations are small, such local neighborhoods can be decisive for population extinction or survival.…”

Section: Wanted: Neglected Principles In Coexistence Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The picture changes if we assume terrestrial organisms and in particular sessile ones, which only experience local neighborhoods consisting of a few individuals, for example, trees in forests (Fischer et al 2016). How this local neighborhood is composed can differ significantly depending on relative abundances but also on any process that leads to spatial pattern formation, including species interactions (Pringle and Tarnita 2017) as well as small-scale resource, disturbance, and habitat heterogeneities (Bergholz et al 2017) and founder (van Gestel et al 2014) or simply chance effects (Yitbarek and Vandermeer 2017). In particular, when populations are small, such local neighborhoods can be decisive for population extinction or survival.…”

Section: Local Heterogeneities Interactions and Feedbacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Give chance a chance: from coexistence to coviability in biodiversity theory

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large part of biodiversity theory is driven by the basic question of what allows species to coexist in spite of a confined number of niches. A substantial theoretical background to this question is provided by modern coexistence theory (MCT), which rests on mathematical approaches of invasion analysis to categorize underlying mechanisms into factors that reduce either niche overlap (stabilizing mechanisms) or the average fitness differences of species (equalizing mechanisms). While MCT has inspired biodiversity theory in the search for these underlying mechanisms, we feel that the strong focus on coexistence causes a bias toward the most abundant species and neglects the plethora of species that are less abundant and often show high local turnover. Given the more stochastic nature of their occurrence, we advocate a complementary cross‐level approach that links individuals, small populations, and communities and explicitly takes into account (1) a more complete inclusion of environmental and demographic stochasticity affecting small populations, (2) intraspecific trait variation and behavioral plasticity, and (3) local heterogeneities, interactions, and feedbacks. Focusing on mechanisms that drive the temporary coviability of species rather than infinite coexistence, we suggest a new approach that could be dubbed coviability analysis (CVA). From a modeling perspective, CVA builds on the merged approaches of individual‐based modeling and population viability analysis but extends them to the community level. From an empirical viewpoint, CVA calls for a stronger integration of spatiotemporal data on variability and noise, changing drivers, and interactions at the level of individuals. The resulting large volumes of data from multiple sources could be strongly supported by novel techniques tailored to the discovery of complex patterns in high‐dimensional data. By complementing MCT through a stronger focus on the coviability of less common species, this approach can help make modern biodiversity theory more comprehensive, predictive, and relevant for applications.

show abstract

Section: Wanted: Neglected Principles In Coexistence Theorysupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Wanted: Neglected Principles In Coexistence Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Local Heterogeneities Interactions and Feedbacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Give chance a chance: from coexistence to coviability in biodiversity theory

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on the consequences of intransitive competition for community‐level attributes other than richness or species abundances is in its infancy. Changes in competition hierarchy have been related to spatial, functional trait and phylogenetic patterns (Gallien, ; Maynard, Bradford, et al., ; Yitbarek & Vandermeer ). Reciprocal competitive advantages, necessary to cause intransitivity, can arise from trade‐offs in competitive ability for different resources; and if functional traits are linked to competition, then more intransitive networks should have higher functional trait diversity (Maynard, Bradford, et al., ; but see Gallien, ).…”

Section: Beyond Species Coexistence: What Are the Consequences Of Intmentioning

confidence: 99%

Everything you always wanted to know about intransitive competition but were afraid to ask

Soliveres

Allan

2018

Journal of Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 40 years after the introduction of the concept into ecology, intransitive (i.e. non‐hierarchical) competition remains overlooked by ecological theory, despite theoretical work showing it could be a major driver of species coexistence. This special feature presents six studies, including models, reviews, experimental studies and large‐scale observational studies. Collectively, these studies help to (i) link intransitive competition with short‐ and long‐term coexistence and with other ecological patterns, (ii) evaluate the conditions under which intransitivity is more common and (iii) determine how best to quantify the degree of intransitivity. The studies in this special feature show the generality of intransitive competition in nature, explore interactions between intransitivity and other coexistence mechanisms, and illustrate the effect of environmental conditions (drought, shade, fertility) on intransitivity and coexistence. They also show which metrics best quantify intransitivity and highlight the importance of adopting a more continuous view of competition as varying from strongly transitive to strongly intransitive. The studies also examine relationships between intransitivity and functional diversity and explore the evolution of intransitivity over time. Synthesis. The studies presented here advance the field by integrating intransitive competition into species coexistence and general ecological theory. We also highlight important research gaps that will hopefully inspire the next generation of studies in this topic.

show abstract

“…Conversely, plants, protozoa or bacteria may compete more directly for resources although sessile organisms do so more locally than mobile organisms. Intransitivity in competition networks may decline in well‐mixed communities (Laird & Schamp, ; Reichenbach, Mobilia, & Frey, ; Yitbarek & Vandermeer, ) and therefore could be less common for mobile taxa. Despite intransitive competition has been described in many taxa (see reviews in Gallien, ; Soliveres & Allan, ), the wide range of ways in which different organisms can compete has been seldom considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intransitive competition is common across five major taxonomic groups and is driven by productivity, competitive rank and functional traits

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition can be fully hierarchical or intransitive, and this degree of hierarchy is driven by multiple factors, including environmental conditions, the functional traits of the species involved or the topology of competition networks. Studies simultaneously analysing these drivers of competition hierarchy are rare. Additionally, organisms compete either directly or via interference competition for resources or space, within a local neighbourhood or across the habitat. Therefore, the drivers of competition could change accordingly and depend on the taxa studied. We performed the first multi‐taxon study on pairwise competition across major taxonomic groups, including experiments with vascular plants, mosses, saprobic fungi, aquatic protists and soil bacteria. We evaluated how general is competition intransitivity from the pairwise competition matrix including all species and also for each possible three‐species combination (triplets). We then examined which species were likely to engage in competitive loops and the effects of environmental conditions, competitive rank and functional traits on intransitive competition. We found some degree of competition intransitivity in all taxa studied, with 38% to 5% of triplets being intransitive. Variance in competitive rank between species and more fertile conditions strongly reduced intransitivity, with triplets composed of species differing widely in their competitive ranks much less likely to be intransitive. Including functional traits of the species involved more than doubled the variation explained compared to models including competitive rank only. Both trait means and variance within triplets affected the odds of them being intransitive. However, the traits responsible and the direction of trait effects varied widely between taxa, suggesting that traits can have a wide variety of effects on competition. Synthesis. We evaluated the drivers of competition across multiple taxa and showed that productivity and competitive rank are fundamental drivers of intransitivity. We also showed that not only the functional traits of each species, but also those of the accompanying species, determine competition intransitivity. Intransitive competition is common across multiple taxa but can dampen under fertile conditions or for those species with large variance in their competitive abilities. This provides a first step towards predicting the prevalence of intransitive competition in natural communities.

show abstract

Reduction of species coexistence through mixing in a spatial competition model

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

Give chance a chance: from coexistence to coviability in biodiversity theory

Give chance a chance: from coexistence to coviability in biodiversity theory

Everything you always wanted to know about intransitive competition but were afraid to ask

Intransitive competition is common across five major taxonomic groups and is driven by productivity, competitive rank and functional traits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About