Quantifying and testing coexistence mechanisms arising from recruitment fluctuations.

Temporal fluctuations in recruitment are involved in two distinct coexistence mechanisms, the storage effect and relative nonlinearity of competition, which may act simultaneously to stabilize species coexistence. It is shown that comparisons of recruitment variation between species at high versus low densities can test whether these mechanisms are responsible for stable coexistence. Moreover, under certain circumstances, these comparisons can measure the total coexistence stabilizing effect of the mechanism. These comparisons are clearest for the situation of an invader (a species perturbed to low density) in the presence of its competitors, termed residents. Then average invader-resident differences in the variances of log recruitment, potentially weighted by adult survival rates and species' sensitivities to competition, are proportional to the overall stabilizing effect of the storage effect and relative nonlinearity of competition. Less effective comparisons are available for species naturally at high and low densities or with substantial mean differences in average fitness. These developments lead also to a technique of partitioning the long-term low-density growth rate of a species into community average measures of stabilizing mechanisms, deviations from these measures, and other factors. The community average measure is argued as most appropriate for understanding the ability of a coexistence mechanism to stabilize coexistence. Individual species' deviations from the community average indicate the ways in a which a coexistence mechanism may affect average fitness differences between species either enhancing or diminishing the ability of a given set of species to coexist, depending on other factors. This approach provides a general new tool for analyzing species coexistence.

[1]  Franz J. Weissing,et al.  Oscillations and chaos generated by competition for interactively essential resources , 2002, Ecological Research.

[2]  P. Chesson,et al.  Annual seed dormancy cycles in two desert winter annuals , 1993 .

[3]  P. Chesson,et al.  Environmental Variability Promotes Coexistence in Lottery Competitive Systems , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[4]  C. Cáceres,et al.  Temporal variation, dormancy, and coexistence: a field test of the storage effect. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  P. Chesson,et al.  Short-term instabilities and long-term community dynamics. , 1989, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  Peter Chesson,et al.  The Storage Effect in Stochastic Population Models , 1984 .

[7]  P. Chesson,et al.  The Roles of Harsh and Fluctuating Conditions in the Dynamics of Ecological Communities , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[8]  R. Holt,et al.  The impact of consumer-resource cycles on the coexistence of competing consumers. , 2002, Theoretical population biology.

[9]  Dixon,et al.  Episodic fluctuations in larval supply , 1999, Science.

[10]  M. B. Davis,et al.  Historical development of alternate communities in a hemlock- hardwood forest in northern Michigan, USA , 1994 .

[11]  James B. Grace,et al.  On the Measurement of Plant Competition Intensity , 1995 .

[12]  K. Bjorndal,et al.  Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems , 2001, Science.

[13]  Peter Chesson,et al.  The stabilizing effect of a random environment , 1982 .

[14]  P. Doherty,et al.  Demographic consequences of variable recruitment to coral reef fish populations: a congeneric comparison of two damselfishes , 1994 .

[15]  Peter Chesson,et al.  The age-structured lottery model. , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[16]  C. E. Pake,et al.  Is Coexistence of Sonoran Desert Annuals Mediated by Temporal Variability Reproductive Success , 1995 .

[17]  Michael Turelli,et al.  Niche overlap and invasion of competitors in random environments I. Models without demographic stochasticity , 1981 .

[18]  W. Godwin.  Article in Press , 2000 .

[19]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Coexistence Mediated by Recruitment Fluctuations: A Field Guide to the Storage Effect , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[20]  P. Abrams.  Recruitment, Lotteries, and Coexistence in Coral Reef Fish , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[21]  M. Bowler,et al.  Coexistence and relative abundance in forest trees , 2002, Nature.

[22]  P. Chesson.  Multispecies Competition in Variable Environments , 1994 .

[23]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Geometry, heterogeneity and competition in variable environments , 1990 .

[24]  P. Chesson.  Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity , 2000 .

[25]  C. E. Pake,et al.  Seed Banks in Desert Annuals: Implications for Persistence and Coexistence in Variable Environments , 1996 .

[26]  P. Chesson,et al.  Diffusion analysis and stationary distribution of the two-species lottery competition model , 1989 .

[27]  P. Chesson.  General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. , 2000, Theoretical population biology.

[28]  S. Ellner,et al.  Convergence to stationary distributions in two-species stochastic competition models , 1989, Journal of mathematical biology.

[29]  Robert M. May,et al.  Large-Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology. , 1995 .

[30]  M. Turelli,et al.  Does environmental variability limit niche overlap? , 1978, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.