The tolerance–fecundity trade-off and the maintenance of diversity in seed size

Seed size commonly varies by five to six orders of magnitude among coexisting plant species, a pattern ecologists have long sought to explain. Because seed size trades off with seed number, small-seeded species clearly have the advantage in fecundity, but what is the countervailing advantage of large seeds? Higher competitive ability combined with strong competitive asymmetry can in theory allow coexistence through a competition–colonization trade-off, but empirical evidence is inconsistent with this mechanism. Instead, the key advantage of large seeds appears to be their tolerance of stresses such as shade or drought that are present in some but not all regeneration sites. Here I present a simple, analytically tractable model of species coexistence in heterogeneous habitats through a tolerance–fecundity trade-off. Under this mechanism, the more tolerant species win all of the more stressful regeneration sites and some of those that are less stressful, whereas the more fecund species win most but not all of the less stressful sites. The tolerance–fecundity trade-off enables stable coexistence of large numbers of species in models with and without seed limitation. The tolerance–fecundity mechanism provides an excellent explanation for the maintenance of diversity of seed size within plant communities and also suggests new hypotheses for coexistence in animal and microbial communities.

[1]  K. Harms,et al.  Seed arrival, ecological filters, and plant species richness: a meta-analysis. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[2]  K. Kitajima,et al.  Susceptibility of Tree Seedlings to Biotic and Abiotic Hazards in the Understory of a Moist Tropical Forest in Panama , 2009 .

[3]  M. Rees,et al.  The scaling of seed size , 2009 .

[4]  Lindsay A. Turnbull,et al.  Why equalising trade-offs aren't always neutral. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[5]  M. Westoby,et al.  A General Model for the Scaling of Offspring Size and Adult Size , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[6]  S. Hubbell,et al.  Interspecific variation in primary seed dispersal in a tropical forest , 2008 .

[7]  H. Muller‐Landau.  Colonization-related tradeoffs in tropical forests and their role in the maintenance of plant species diversity , 2008 .

[8]  M. Rees,et al.  Why do big plants make big seeds? , 2007 .

[9]  C. Clark,et al.  Are Plant Populations Seed Limited? A Critique and Meta‐Analysis of Seed Addition Experiments , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[10]  M. Westoby,et al.  Seed size and plant strategy across the whole life cycle , 2006 .

[11]  L. Aarssen.  Why don't bigger plants have proportionately bigger seeds? , 2005 .

[12]  O. Eriksson.  Game theory provides no explanation for seed size variation in grasslands , 2005, Oecologia.

[13]  M. Westoby,et al.  Seedling survival and seed size: a synthesis of the literature , 2004 .

[14]  L. Poorter,et al.  The importance of seed mass for early regeneration in tropical forest: a review , 2003 .

[15]  D. Coomes,et al.  Colonization, tolerance, competition and seed-size variation within functional groups , 2003 .

[16]  É. Kisdi,et al.  Competition–colonization trade-off between perennial plants: exclusion of the rare species, hysteresis effects and the robustness of co-existence under replacement competition , 2003 .

[17]  É. Kisdi,et al.  On the Coexistence of Perennial Plants by the Competition‐Colonization Trade‐Off , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[18]  M. Westoby,et al.  ECOLOGICAL STRATEGIES : Some Leading Dimensions of Variation Between Species , 2002 .

[19]  M. Rees,et al.  Coexistence and Relative Abundance in Annual Plant Assemblages: The Roles of Competition and Colonization , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[20]  Stephen P. Hubbell,et al.  Role of dispersal in the recruitment limitation of neotropical pioneer species , 2002 .

[21]  S. Hubbell,et al.  Seed size, growth rate and gap microsite conditions as determinants of recruitment success for pioneer species , 2002 .

[22]  S. Levin,et al.  Comparing Classical Community Models: Theoretical Consequences for Patterns of Diversity , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[23]  S. Hubbell,et al.  Assessing recruitment limitation: concepts, methods and case-studies from a tropical forest. , 2002 .

[24]  R. Freckleton,et al.  Predicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life‐history traits , 2001 .

[25]  M. Westoby,et al.  Seed mass and seed nutrient content as predictors of seed output variation between species , 2001 .

[26]  Frederick R. Adler,et al.  IS SPACE NECESSARY? INTERFERENCE COMPETITION AND LIMITS TO BIODIVERSITY , 2000 .

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

[28]  Helene C. Muller-Landau,et al.  The evolution of dispersal and seed size in plant communities , 2000 .

[29]  O. Eriksson,et al.  A comparative study of seed number, seed size, seedling size and recruitment in grassland plants , 2000 .

[30]  Lindsay A. Turnbull,et al.  Are plant populations seed-limited? A review of seed sowing experiments. , 2000 .

[31]  M. Westoby,et al.  The Evolutionary ecology of seed size , 2000 .

[32]  J. Metz,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of seed size and seedling competitive ability. , 1999, Theoretical population biology.

[33]  S. Pacala,et al.  Models Suggesting Field Experiments to Test Two Hypotheses Explaining Successional Diversity , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[34]  Potts,et al.  Can high tree species richness be explained by Hubbell’s null model? , 1998 .

[35]  James S. Clark,et al.  STAGES AND SPATIAL SCALES OF RECRUITMENT LIMITATION IN SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN FORESTS , 1998 .

[36]  Clarence Lehman,et al.  Habitat Destruction, Dispersal, and Deterministic Extinction in Competitive Communities , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[37]  M. Westoby,et al.  Game-Theoretical Evolution of Seed Mass in Multi-Species Ecological Models , 1997 .

[38]  George C. Hurtt,et al.  The consequences of recruitment limitation: reconciling chance, history and competitive differences between plants , 1995 .

[39]  M. Nowak,et al.  Habitat destruction and the extinction debt , 1994, Nature.

[40]  D. Tilman.  Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats , 1994 .

[41]  T. Kohyama,et al.  Size-structured tree populations in gap-dynamic forest-the forest architecture hypothesis for the stable coexistence of species , 1993 .

[42]  David Tilman,et al.  The maintenance of species richness in plant communities , 1993 .

[43]  M. Fenner.  Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities , 1992 .

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

[45]  A. Hastings.  Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space , 1980 .

[46]  J. Connell,et al.  Mechanisms of Succession in Natural Communities and Their Role in Community Stability and Organization , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[47]  Christopher C. Smith,et al.  The Optimal Balance between Size and Number of Offspring , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[48]  R. Levins,et al.  Regional Coexistence of Species and Competition between Rare Species. , 1971, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  John L. Harper,et al.  The Shapes and Sizes of Seeds , 1970 .