Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology

Abstract. Assembly rules provide one possible unifying framework for community ecology. Given a species pool, and measured traits for each species, the objective is to specify which traits (and therefore which subset of species) will occur in a particular environment. Because the problem primarily involves traits and environments, answers should be generalizable to systems with very different taxonomic composition. In this context, the environment functions like a filter (or sieve) removing all species lacking specified combinations of traits. In this way, assembly rules are a community level analogue of natural selection. Response rules follow a similar process except that they transform a vector of species abundances to a new vector using the same information. Examples already exist from a range of habitats, scales, and kinds of organisms.

[1]  P. Keddy,et al.  Fertility and the food quality of wetland plants: a test of the resource availability hypothesis , 1990 .

[2]  R. Peters,et al.  A Test of the Tilman Model of Plant Strategies: Relative Growth Rate and Biomass Partitioning , 1990, The American Naturalist.

[3]  T. F. H. Allen,et al.  The confusion between scale‐defined levels and conventional levels of organization in ecology , 1990 .

[4]  L. Aarssen,et al.  Neighbour manipulations in natural vegetation a review , 1990 .

[5]  P. Keddy.  22 – The Use of Functional as Opposed to Phylogenetic Systematics: A First Step in Predictive Community Ecology , 1990 .

[6]  Bill Shipley,et al.  Regeneration and Establishment Strategies of Emergent Macrophytes , 1989 .

[7]  P. Keddy,et al.  Species richness – standing crop relationships along four lakeshore gradients: constraints on the general model , 1989 .

[8]  P. Keddy,et al.  The conservation and management of a threatened coastal plain plant community in Eastern North America (Nova Scotia, Canada) , 1989 .

[9]  P. Keddy,et al.  The relationship between relative growth rate and sensitivity to nutrient stress in twenty-eight species of emergent macrophytes , 1988 .

[10]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  FERTILITY AND DISTURBANCE GRADIENTS: A SUMMARY MODEL FOR RIVERINE MARSH VEGETATION' , 1988 .

[11]  Paul A. Keddy,et al.  A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits , 1988, Nature.

[12]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Comparative Plant Ecology , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[13]  S. Sheldon.  The Effects of Herbivorous Snails on Submerged Macrophyte Communities in Minnesota Lakes. , 1987, Ecology.

[14]  Deborah E. Goldberg,et al.  NEIGHBORHOOD COMPETITION IN AN OLD-FIELD PLANT COMMUNITY' , 1987 .

[15]  L. Aarssen.  Interpretation of the evolutionary consequences of competition in plants: an experimental approach , 1985 .

[16]  P. Keddy.  Lakeshores in the Tusket River valley, Nova Scotia: destribution and status of some rare species, including Coreopsis rosea Nutt. and Sabatia kennedyana Fern. , 1985 .

[17]  T. Fagerström,et al.  Limiting dissimilarity in plants: randomness prevents exclusion of species with similar competitive abilities , 1984 .

[18]  D. Simberloff.  The Great God of Competition , 1984 .

[19]  Ilya Prigogine,et al.  Order out of chaos , 1984 .

[20]  Elgene O. Box,et al.  Tasks for Vegetation Science I: Macroclimate and Plant Forms: An Introduction to Predictive Modeling in Phytogeography , 2011 .

[21]  L. Aarssen.  Ecological Combining Ability and Competitive Combining Ability in Plants: Toward a General Evolutionary Theory of Coexistence in Systems of Competition , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[22]  P. Keddy.  Shoreline Vegetation in Axe Lake, Ontario: Effects of Exposure on Zonation Patterns , 1983 .

[23]  R. Lenski.  EFFECTS OF FOREST CUTTING ON TWO CARABUS SPECIES: EVIDENCE FOR COMPETITION FOR FOOD' , 1982 .

[24]  F. H. Rigler,et al.  Recognition of the Possible: An Advantage of Empiricism in Ecology , 1982 .

[25]  S. Wright,et al.  Island Biogeographic Distributions: Testing for Random, Regular, and Aggregated Patterns of Species Occurrence , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[26]  William C. Wimsatt,et al.  Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy , 1982 .

[27]  A. G. Valk,et al.  Succession in Wetlands: A Gleasonian Appraoch , 1981 .

[28]  William D. Severinghaus,et al.  Guild theory development as a mechanism for assessing environmental impact , 1981 .

[29]  A. Beattie,et al.  The Guild of Myrmecochores in the Herbaceous Flora of West Virginia Forests , 1981 .

[30]  I. Abbott,et al.  INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION, ISLAND BIOGEOGRAPHY AND NULL HYPOTHESES , 1980, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[31]  R. Peters.  From Natural History to Ecology , 2015 .

[32]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. , 1980 .

[33]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  The Assembly of Species Communities: Chance or Competition? , 1979 .

[34]  M. Klug,et al.  Feeding Ecology of Stream Invertebrates , 1979 .

[35]  B. Bentley.  Population Biology of Plants.John L. Harper , 1978 .

[36]  J W Haefner,et al.  Ecosystem assemble grammars: generative capacity and empirical adequacy. , 1978, Journal of theoretical biology.

[37]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Evidence for the Existence of Three Primary Strategies in Plants and Its Relevance to Ecological and Evolutionary Theory , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[38]  W. Platt,et al.  Resource Partitioning and Competition within a Guild of Fugitive Prairie Plants , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[39]  J. Diamond,et al.  Ecology and Evolution of Communities , 1976, Nature.

[40]  Roderick Hunt,et al.  Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. , 1975 .

[41]  J. P. Grime.  Vegetation classification by reference to strategies , 1974, Nature.

[42]  R. Lewontin,et al.  The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change , 2022 .

[43]  K. Cummins,et al.  Trophic Relations of Aquatic Insects , 1973 .

[44]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  A treatise on limnology. , 1957 .

[45]  W. Pearsall.  The aquatic vegetation of the English lakes. , 1920 .