The effects of intransitive competition on coexistence.

Coexistence theory has been developed with an almost exclusive focus on interactions between two species, often ignoring more complex and indirect interactions, such as intransitive loops, that can emerge in competition networks. In fact, intransitive competition has typically been studied in isolation from other pairwise stabilising processes, and thus little is known about how intransitivity interacts with more traditional drivers of species coexistence such as niche partitioning. To integrate intransitivity into traditional coexistence theory, we developed a metric of growth rate when rare, Δri¯, to identify and quantify the impact of intransitive competition against a backdrop of pairwise stabilising niche differences. Using this index with simulations of community dynamics, we demonstrate that intransitive loops can both stabilise or destabilise species coexistence, but the strength and importance of intransitive interactions are significantly affected by the length and the topology of these loops. We conclude by showing how Δri¯ can be used to evaluate effects of intransitivity in empirical studies. Our results emphasise the need to integrate complex mechanisms emerging from diverse interactions into our understanding of species coexistence.

[1]  Karline Soetaert,et al.  Solving Differential Equations in R: Package deSolve , 2010 .

[2]  G. Gauze.  The struggle for existence, by G. F. Gause. , 1934 .

[3]  L. Buss,et al.  Competitive Networks: Nontransitive Competitive Relationships in Cryptic Coral Reef Environments , 1979, The American Naturalist.

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

[5]  M. Feldman,et al.  Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors , 2002, Nature.

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

[7]  Peter B. Adler,et al.  Large niche differences emerge at the recruitment stage to stabilize grassland coexistence , 2015 .

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

[9]  Laure Gallien,et al.  Intransitive competition and its effects on community functional diversity , 2017 .

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

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

[12]  R. Durrett,et al.  Spatial aspects of interspecific competition. , 1998, Theoretical population biology.

[13]  Robert A Laird,et al.  Competitive intransitivity, population interaction structure, and strategy coexistence. , 2015, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  J. Wootton,et al.  Causes of species diversity differences: a comparative analysis of Markov models , 2001 .

[15]  T. Huxman,et al.  Water-use efficiency and relative growth rate mediate competitive interactions in Sonoran Desert winter annual plants. , 2013, American journal of botany.

[16]  N. Gotelli,et al.  Matrix models for quantifying competitive intransitivity. , 2014, Oikos.

[17]  J. Timothy Wootton,et al.  Field parameterization and experimental test of the neutral theory of biodiversity , 2005, Nature.

[18]  Sebastian J Schreiber,et al.  Spatial heterogeneity promotes coexistence of rock-paper-scissors metacommunities. , 2012, Theoretical population biology.

[19]  M. Gilpin.  Limit Cycles in Competition Communities , 1975, The American Naturalist.

[20]  Karline Soetaert,et al.  Inverse Modelling, Sensitivity and Monte Carlo Analysis in R Using Package FME , 2010 .

[21]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Intransitive competition is widespread in plant communities and maintains their species richness. , 2015, Ecology letters.

[22]  Richard A. Lankau,et al.  Mutual Feedbacks Maintain Both Genetic and Species Diversity in a Plant Community , 2007, Science.

[23]  F. Pugnaire,et al.  Plant Neighbour Identity Matters to Belowground Interactions under Controlled Conditions , 2011, PloS one.

[24]  T. Reichenbach,et al.  Mobility promotes and jeopardizes biodiversity in rock–paper–scissors games , 2007, Nature.

[25]  J. Huisman,et al.  Towards a solution of the plankton paradox : the importance of physiology and life history , 2001 .

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

[27]  J. Quinn.  Competitive hierarchies in marine benthic communities , 2004, Oecologia.

[28]  J. Vandermeer.  Intransitive loops in ecosystem models: From stable foci to heteroclinic cycles , 2011 .

[29]  Nathan J B Kraft,et al.  Phylogenetic relatedness and the determinants of competitive outcomes. , 2014, Ecology letters.

[30]  Todd H. Oakley,et al.  Experimental evidence that evolutionary relatedness does not affect the ecological mechanisms of coexistence in freshwater green algae. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[31]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Functional tradeoffs determine species coexistence via the storage effect , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[33]  Janneke HilleRisLambers,et al.  The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity , 2009, Nature.

[34]  J. Timothy Wootton,et al.  Characterizing Species Interactions to Understand Press Perturbations: What Is the Community Matrix? , 2016 .