The Effects of Dynamical Rates on Species Coexistence in a Variable Environment: The Paradox of the Plankton Revisited

Hutchinson’s famous hypothesis for the “paradox of the plankton” has been widely accepted, but critical aspects have remained unchallenged. Hutchinson argued that environmental fluctuations would promote coexistence when the timescale for environmental change is comparable to the timescale for competitive exclusion. Using a consumer-resource model, we do find that timescales of processes are important. However, it is not the time to exclusion that must be compared with the time for environmental change but the time for resource depletion. Fast resource depletion, when resource consumption is favored for different species at different times, strongly promotes coexistence. The time for exclusion is independent of the rate of resource depletion. Therefore, the widely believed predictions of Hutchinson are misleading. Fast resource depletion, as determined by environmental conditions, ensures strong coupling of environmental processes and competition, which leads to enhancement over time of intraspecific competition relative to interspecific competition as environmental shifts favor different species at different times. This critical coupling is measured by the covariance between environment and competition. Changes in this quantity as densities change determine the stability of coexistence and provide the key to rigorous analysis, both theoretically and empirically, of coexistence in a variable environment. These ideas apply broadly to diversity maintenance in variable environments whether the issue is species diversity or genetic diversity and competition or apparent competition.

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

[2]  J. Gillespie.  Polymorphism in random environments , 1973 .

[3]  J H Gillespie,et al.  Conditions for the existence of stationary densities for some two-dimensional diffusion processes with applications in population biology. , 1980, Theoretical population biology.

[4]  G. Vieilledent,et al.  Intra-specific variability and the competition–colonisation trade-off: coexistence, abundance and stability patterns , 2010, Theoretical Ecology.

[5]  M. Turelli,et al.  STABLE TWO‐ALLELE POLYMORPHISMS MAINTAINED BY FLUCTUATING FITNESSES AND SEED BANKS: PROTECTING THE BLUES IN LINANTHUS PARRYAE , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

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

[7]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  Ecological Aspects of Succession in Natural Populations , 1941, The American Naturalist.

[8]  J. Huisman,et al.  Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos , 1999, Nature.

[9]  G. Tullock,et al.  Competitive Exclusion. , 1960, Science.

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

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

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

[13]  R M May,et al.  Niche overlap as a function of environmental variability. , 1972, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

[16]  Andrew Gonzalez,et al.  STABLE COEXISTENCE IN A FLUCTUATING ENVIRONMENT: AN EXPERIMENTAL DEMONSTRATION , 2005 .

[17]  M. Pekkonen,et al.  Temporal variability in detritus resource maintains diversity of bacterial communities , 2008 .

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

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

[20]  R M May,et al.  Biological Populations with Nonoverlapping Generations: Stable Points, Stable Cycles, and Chaos , 1974, Science.

[21]  M. J.,et al.  Two Species Competition in a Periodic Environment * , 2004 .

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

[23]  S. Ellner,et al.  Role of Overlapping Generations in Maintaining Genetic Variation in a Fluctuating Environment , 1994, The American Naturalist.

[24]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Coexistence of Competitors in a Stochastic Environment: The Storage Effect , 1983 .

[25]  A. Dean,et al.  Bounded population sizes, fluctuating selection and the tempo and mode of coexistence , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[27]  P. Richerson,et al.  Contemporaneous disequilibrium, a new hypothesis to explain the "paradox of the plankton". , 1970, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[29]  P. de Mottoni,et al.  Competition systems with periodic coefficients: A geometric approach , 1981 .

[30]  Peter Chesson,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL NICHES AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING , 2006 .

[31]  K. Wiegand,et al.  Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments , 2004, Oecologia.

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

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

[34]  J. Hermisson,et al.  A general condition for adaptive genetic polymorphism in temporally and spatially heterogeneous environments. , 2014, Theoretical population biology.

[35]  J. Fox,et al.  The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned. , 2013, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[36]  Mark A McPeek,et al.  On the evidence for species coexistence: a critique of the coexistence program. , 2010, Ecology.

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

[38]  Marten Scheffer,et al.  Why plankton communities have no equilibrium: solutions to the paradox , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[39]  C. Klausmeier.  Successional state dynamics: a novel approach to modeling nonequilibrium foodweb dynamics. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

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

[41]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Coexistence of Competitors in Spatially and Temporally Varying Environments: A Look at the Combined Effects of Different Sorts of Variability , 1985 .

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

[43]  M. Palmer,et al.  Variation in species richness: Towards a unification of hypotheses , 1994, Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica.

[44]  K. Kirk.  Competition in variable environments: experiments with planktonic rotifers , 2002 .

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