Fusing spatial resource heterogeneity with a competition–colonization trade-off in model communities
Tóm tắt
Two commonly cited mechanisms of multispecies coexistence in patchy environments are spatial heterogeneity in competitive abilities caused by variation in resources and a competition–colonization trade-off. In this paper, a model that fuses these mechanisms together is presented and analyzed. The model suggests that spatial variation in resource ratios can lead to multispecies coexistence, but this mechanism by itself is weak when the number of resources for which species compete is small. However, spatial resource heterogeneity is a powerful mechanism for multispecies coexistence when it acts synergistically with a competition–colonization trade-off. The model also shows how resource supply can control the competitive balance between species that are weak competitors but superior colonizers and strong competitors/inferior colonizers. This provides additional theoretical support for a possible explanation of empirically observed hump-shaped relationships between species diversity and ecological productivity.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abrams PA, Wilson WG (2004) Coexistence of competitors in metacommunities due to spatial variation in resource growth rates: does R* predict the outcome of competition? Ecol Lett 7:929–940
Adler FR, Mosquera J (2000) Is space necessary? Interference competition and limits to biodiversity. Ecology 81:3226–3232
Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122
Amarasekare P, Nisbet RM (2001) Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics, and the local coexistence of competing species. Am Nat 158:572–584
Banks JE (1997) Do imperfect trade-offs affect the extinction debt phenomenon? Ecology 78:1597–1601
Bell G (2000) The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. Am Nat 155:606–617
Calcagno V, Mouquet N, Jarne P, David P (2006) Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition–colonization trade-off is not dead. Ecol Lett 9:897–907
Caswell H (1976) Community structure – neutral model analysis. Ecol Monogr 46:327–354
Chase JM, Leibold MA (2002) Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship. Nature 416:427–430
Chase JM, Leibold MA (2003) Ecological niches. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 31:343–366
Clark JS, LaDeau S, Ibanez I (2004) Fecundity of trees and the colonization–competition hypothesis. Ecol Monogr 74:415–442
Clark JS, Dietze M, Chakraborty S, Agarwal PK, Ibanez I, LaDeau S, Wolosin W (2007) Resolving the biodiversity paradox. Ecol Lett 10:647–659
Codeco CT, Grover JP (2001) Competition along a spatial gradient of resource supply: a microbial experimental model. Am Nat 157:300–315
Gross K, Cardinale BJ (2007) Does species richness drive community production or vice versa? Reconciling historical and contemporary paradigms in competitive communities. Am Nat 170:207–220
Grover JP (1997) Resource competition. Chapman and Hall, London
Hastings A (1980) Disturbance, coexistence, history and competition for space. Theor Popul Biol 18:363–373
Higgins SI, Cain ML (2002) Spatially realistic plant metapopulation models and the competition–colonization trade-off. J Ecol 90:616–626
Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of species abundance and diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Huisman J, Weissing FJ (2001) Biological conditions for oscillations and chaos generated by multispecies competition. Ecology 82:2682–2695
Kinzig AP, Levin SA, Dushoff J, Pacala S (1999) Limiting similarity, species packing, and system stability for hierarchical competition-colonization models. Am Nat 153:371–383
Kisdi E, Geritz SAH (2003) On the coexistence of perennial plants by the competition–colonization trade-off. Am Nat 161:350–354
Kneitel JM, Chase JM (2004) Trade-offs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence. Ecol Lett 7:69–80
Kondoh M (2001) Unifying the relationships of species richness to productivity and disturbance. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:269–271
León JA, Tumpson DB (1975) Competition between two species for two complementary or substitutable resources. J Theor Biol 50:185–201
Levine JM, Rees M (2002) Coexistence and relative abundance in annual plant assemblages: the roles of competition and colonization. Am Nat 160:452–467
Levins R, Culver D (1971) Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 68:1246–1248
Mittelbach GG, Steiner CF, Scheiner SM, Gross KL, Reynolds HL, Waide RB, Willig MR, et al (2001) What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:2381–2396
Mouquet N, Miller TE, Daufresne T, Kneitel JM (2006) Consequences of varying regional heterogeneity in source-sink metacommunities. Oikos 113:481–488
Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z (1993) How are diversity and productivity related? In Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in biological communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 52–65
Ross SM (2003) Introduction to probability models. Academic Press, San Diego
Shurin JB, Amarasakare P, Chase JM, Holt RD, Hoopes MF, Leibold MA (2004) Alternative stable states and regional community structure. J Theor Biol 227:359–368
Tilman D (1980) Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am Nat 116:362–393
Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16
Tilman D, Pacala S (1993) The maintenance of species richness in plant communities. In Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in biological communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 13–25
Waide RB, Willig MR, Steiner CF, Mittelbach G, Gough L, Dodson SI, Juday GP, et al (1999) The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annu Rev Ecol Evolut Syst 30:257–300
Yu DW, Wilson HB (2001) The competition–colonization trade-off is dead: long live the competition–colonization trade-off. Am Nat 158:49–63