Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity

A quantitative approach to species coexistence based on the invasibility criterion has led to an appreciation of coexistence mechanisms in terms of stabilizing and equalizing components, but major challenges are the need to consider general multispecies settings, interactions beyond competition, and multiple scales of space and time. Moreover, two essential concepts, species‐level average fitness and scaling factors, have not had clear definitions. A general approach to defining average fitnesses and scaling factors is given, along with the origin of stabilizing mechanisms as deviations from a reference model where no coexistence is possible. Illustrations are general Lotka–Volterra models, models accounting specifically for resource use and natural enemies, and models with temporal fluctuations. Community averages of stabilizing mechanisms reveal overall opportunities for coexistence, and define mechanisms more precisely through their formulae. Average fitnesses adjusted for the presence of coexistence mechanisms provide a better definition of equalizing mechanisms. While these ideas apply to the components of invasion rates, permanence theory and stochastic persistence theory show how invasion rates can be used to demonstrate species coexistence in complex settings. Although species coexistence has often focused on competition, detailed models of the roles of natural enemies provide a new perspective on the opportunities for coexistence in nature. The concept of apparent competition recognizes the essential symmetry between density‐dependence from resource depletion and from supporting natural enemies. Natural enemy partitioning is the natural analogue of resource partitioning and has an equivalent role in promoting coexistence. Rather than reinforcing each other, however, the strength of coexistence is often intermediate between that implied by resource partitioning alone and that implied by natural enemy partitioning alone, as elucidated by recent Lotka–Volterra theory. Synthesis. Although there are alternative approaches for understanding coexistence in multispecies settings, ideas based on stabilizing and equalizing mechanisms continue to provide new insights. Multiple species and multiple trophic levels are naturally challenging, but the new theories of permanence and stochastic persistence support the critical role of invasion rates in species coexistence, and thus support the understanding to be derived by partitioning invasion rates into average fitness differences and stabilizing components.

[1]  Nathan J B Kraft,et al.  Plant functional traits and the multidimensional nature of species coexistence , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  R. Macarthur Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. , 1970, Theoretical population biology.

[3]  R. Macarthur Mathematical Ecology and Its Place among the Sciences. (Book Reviews: Geographical Ecology. Patterns in the Distribution of Species) , 1974 .

[4]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics , 1998 .

[5]  Robert D Holt,et al.  Effects of predation on host-pathogen dynamics in SIR models. , 2008, Theoretical population biology.

[6]  P. Grubb THE MAINTENANCE OF SPECIES‐RICHNESS IN PLANT COMMUNITIES: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REGENERATION NICHE , 1977 .

[7]  James H Brown,et al.  Zero Sum, the Niche, and Metacommunities: Long‐Term Dynamics of Community Assembly , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[8]  Richard Law,et al.  PERMANENCE AND THE ASSEMBLY OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES , 1996 .

[9]  Robert M. May,et al.  Perspectives in Ecological Theory , 1989 .

[10]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Scale transition theory with special reference to species coexistence in a variable environment , 2009, Journal of biological dynamics.

[11]  M. Ayres,et al.  Jensen's inequality predicts effects of environmental variation. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  Peter Chesson,et al.  MacArthur's consumer-resource model , 1990 .

[13]  M. Bowler,et al.  A NEW APPLICATION OF STORAGE DYNAMICS: DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY, DIFFUSE COMPETITION, AND TEMPORAL NICHES , 2005 .

[14]  Alexandru Hening,et al.  Coexistence and extinction for stochastic Kolmogorov systems , 2017, The Annals of Applied Probability.

[15]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Quantifying and testing coexistence mechanisms arising from recruitment fluctuations. , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[16]  R. Bellman Functional equations in the theory of dynamic programming, XVIII: a problem connected with the value of information , 1971 .

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

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

[19]  S. Schreiber,et al.  Persistence in fluctuating environments for interacting structured populations , 2013, Journal of Mathematical Biology.

[20]  Sebastian J. Schreiber,et al.  Persistence in fluctuating environments , 2010, Journal of mathematical biology.

[21]  R. Nisbet,et al.  How should we define 'fitness' for general ecological scenarios? , 1992, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  Burt,et al.  Natural selection in the wild. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  Peter Chesson,et al.  The relative importance of relative nonlinearity and the storage effect in the lottery model. , 2015, Theoretical population biology.

[24]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Variation in moisture duration as a driver of coexistence by the storage effect in desert annual plants. , 2014, Theoretical population biology.

[25]  K Sigmund,et al.  Shaken not stirred: on permanence in ecological communities. , 1998, Theoretical population biology.

[26]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Distance-responsive predation is not necessary for the Janzen-Connell hypothesis. , 2015, Theoretical population biology.

[27]  Simon Gilroy,et al.  Allelopathy and Exotic Plant Invasion: From Molecules and Genes to Species Interactions , 2003, Science.

[28]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  The Effect of Intra- and Interspecific Competition on Coexistence in Multispecies Communities , 2016, The American Naturalist.

[29]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  A competitive network theory of species diversity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[31]  R. Macarthur,et al.  Population Ecology of Some Warblers of Northeastern Coniferous Forests , 1958 .

[32]  D. Hodáňová Plant strategies and vegetation processes , 1981, Biologia Plantarum.

[33]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Species Competition and Predation , 2013 .

[34]  D. Janzen Herbivores and the Number of Tree Species in Tropical Forests , 1970, The American Naturalist.

[35]  Oscar Godoy,et al.  Phenology effects on invasion success: insights from coupling field experiments to coexistence theory. , 2014, Ecology.

[36]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  Robust Permanence for Ecological Differential Equations, Minimax, and Discretizations , 2003, SIAM J. Math. Anal..

[37]  S. Hobbie,et al.  Luxury consumption of soil nutrients: a possible competitive strategy in above‐ground and below‐ground biomass allocation and root morphology for slow‐growing arctic vegetation? , 2003 .

[38]  R. McGehee,et al.  Competitive Exclusion , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[39]  D. Tilman On the meaning of competition and the mechanisms of competitive superiority , 1987 .

[40]  Karen C. Abbott,et al.  Defensive tradeoffs are not prerequisites to plant diversity in a two species model , 2018 .

[41]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  Homage to Santa Rosalia or Why Are There So Many Kinds of Animals? , 1959, The American Naturalist.

[42]  Peter Chesson,et al.  How optimally foraging predators promote prey coexistence in a variable environment. , 2017, Theoretical population biology.

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

[44]  H. Muller‐Landau The tolerance–fecundity trade-off and the maintenance of diversity in seed size , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  Mark Westoby,et al.  Land-plant ecology on the basis of functional traits. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[46]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Coexistence of annual plants: generalist seed predation weakens the storage effect. , 2009, Ecology.

[47]  Suqin Fang,et al.  The effect of soil-borne pathogens depends on the abundance of host tree species , 2015, Nature Communications.

[48]  P. Chesson,et al.  Relative nonlinearity and permanence. , 2010, Theoretical population biology.

[49]  R. Haygood Coexistence in MacArthur-style consumer-resource models. , 2002, Theoretical population biology.

[50]  R. Holt Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. , 1977, Theoretical population biology.

[51]  Ran Nathan,et al.  Spatial patterns of seed dispersal, their determinants and consequences for recruitment. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[52]  R. Paine Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[53]  R P. Freckleton,et al.  Nonmanipulative determination of plant community dynamics. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[54]  James P. Grover,et al.  Simple Rules for Interspecific Dominance in Systems with Exploitative and Apparent Competition , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[55]  Peter B Adler,et al.  The effects of intransitive competition on coexistence. , 2017, Ecology letters.

[56]  Erin A. Mordecai,et al.  Pathogen impacts on plant diversity in variable environments , 2015 .

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

[58]  J. Ghazoul Seed predators and the enemy release hypothesis , 2002 .

[59]  G. Hardin The competitive exclusion principle. , 1960, Science.

[60]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Invasibility and stochastic boundedness in monotonic competition models , 1989 .

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

[62]  D. Tilman Resource competition and community structure. , 1983, Monographs in population biology.

[63]  R. May,et al.  Nonlinear Aspects of Competition Between Three Species , 1975 .

[64]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  The Balance of Nature and Human Impact: The paradox of the plankton , 2013 .

[65]  L. Råberg,et al.  Resistance and tolerance in animal enemy-victim coevolution. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[66]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Interacting coexistence mechanisms in annual plant communities: Frequency-dependent predation and the storage effect. , 2010, Theoretical population biology.

[67]  P. Chesson,et al.  Coexistence and evolutionary dynamics mediated by seasonal environmental variation in annual plant communities. , 2013, Theoretical population biology.

[68]  E. Borer,et al.  Examining the Relative Importance of Spatial and Nonspatial Coexistence Mechanisms , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[69]  K. Schmitt,et al.  Permanence and the dynamics of biological systems. , 1992, Mathematical biosciences.

[70]  James P. Grover,et al.  The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis , 2002 .

[71]  Serguei Saavedra,et al.  A structural approach for understanding multispecies coexistence , 2017 .

[72]  S. Levin Community Equilibria and Stability, and an Extension of the Competitive Exclusion Principle , 1970, The American Naturalist.

[73]  Joseph M. Craine,et al.  Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman , 2005 .

[74]  Peter Chesson,et al.  The storage effect due to frequency-dependent predation in multispecies plant communities. , 2010, Theoretical population biology.

[75]  James Rosindell,et al.  Unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography , 2010, Scholarpedia.

[76]  B. Kempenaers,et al.  Why is there variation in baseline glucocorticoid levels? , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[77]  To persist or not to persist , 2004 .

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

[79]  P. Chesson,et al.  The Effects of Dynamical Rates on Species Coexistence in a Variable Environment: The Paradox of the Plankton Revisited , 2016, The American Naturalist.

[80]  J. Bever,et al.  Microbial population and community dynamics on plant roots and their feedbacks on plant communities. , 2012, Annual review of microbiology.

[81]  Peter Chesson,et al.  The storage effect: definition and tests in two plant communities , 2010 .

[82]  Nathan J B Kraft,et al.  Intransitivity is infrequent and fails to promote annual plant coexistence without pairwise niche differences. , 2017, Ecology.

[83]  Richard Law,et al.  Alternative Permanent States of Ecological Communities , 1993 .

[84]  Stefano Allesina,et al.  Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities , 2017, Nature.

[85]  J. Hofbauer A unified approach to persistence , 1989 .

[86]  Robert D Holt,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity, Indirect Interactions, and the Coexistence of Prey Species , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[87]  J. Bever,et al.  Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. , 2003, The New phytologist.

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

[89]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Predator-Prey Theory and Variability , 1978 .

[90]  Robert D Holt,et al.  Dynamics and responses to mortality rates of competing predators undergoing predator-prey cycles. , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[91]  S. Sistla,et al.  Competition–defense tradeoffs and the maintenance of plant diversity , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[92]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Predation‐Competition Interactions for Seasonally Recruiting Species , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[93]  J. Connell On the role of the natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine animals and in rain forest trees , 1971 .

[94]  Peter Chesson,et al.  The interaction between predation and competition , 2008, Nature.

[95]  M. Wise,et al.  Effects of Resource Availability on Tolerance of Herbivory: A Review and Assessment of Three Opposing Models , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[96]  A. Agrawal,et al.  The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[97]  P. Abrams Variability in resource consumption rates and the coexistence of competing species , 1984 .

[98]  R. Holt,et al.  Disentangling Resource and Apparent Competition: Realistic Models for Plant-herbivore Communities , 1998 .

[99]  Peter R. Grant,et al.  Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin's Finches , 2006, Science.

[100]  Nest-plugging: interference competition in desert ants (Novomessor cockerelli and Pogonomyrmex barbatus) , 1988, Oecologia.

[101]  High Competition with Low Similarity and Low Competition with High Similarity: Exploitative and Apparent Competition in Consumer‐Resource Systems , 1998, The American Naturalist.