2008
DOI: 10.1890/07-0117.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does Local Competition Increase the Coexistence of Species in Intransitive Networks

Abstract: Competitive intransitivity, a situation in which species' competitive ranks cannot be listed in a strict hierarchy, promotes species coexistence through "enemy's enemy indirect facilitation." Theory suggests that intransitivity-mediated coexistence is enhanced when competitive interactions occur at local spatial scales, although this hypothesis has not been thoroughly tested. Here, we use a lattice model to investigate the effect of local vs. global competition on intransitivity-mediated coexistence across a r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
94
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(98 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
3
94
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, the non-waterlogging treatment (0 cm water level) caused an increase in C. lasiocarpa biomass in the monoculture, but generally had no significant difference relative to mild-waterlogging treatment (10 cm water level) in all mixtures. This may be because interspecific competition suppresses the plant's growth at the physiological optimum (Laird and Schamp 2008;Bartelheimer et al 2010). Just as the relative yield of C. lasiocarpa showed in this study, the interference from D. angustifolia decreased with rising water level in 1:1 and 1:2 mixtures.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…In this study, the non-waterlogging treatment (0 cm water level) caused an increase in C. lasiocarpa biomass in the monoculture, but generally had no significant difference relative to mild-waterlogging treatment (10 cm water level) in all mixtures. This may be because interspecific competition suppresses the plant's growth at the physiological optimum (Laird and Schamp 2008;Bartelheimer et al 2010). Just as the relative yield of C. lasiocarpa showed in this study, the interference from D. angustifolia decreased with rising water level in 1:1 and 1:2 mixtures.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…Transitivity was examined using two approaches. First, the relative intransitivity (Laird and Schamp 2008) of the seedling and adult relative yield matrices were calculated. This approach yields an index ranging between 0 (fully transitive with a clear competitive hierarchy) and 1 (maximal intransitivity for that matrix with no clear fully dominant and subordinate species) that allows the degree of transitivity in competition matrices to be easily compared.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, S = 4 is the simplest case in which neutral pairs may form noninteracting, passive alliances that prevent or delay invasions [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. On the other hand, active defensive alliances [27] may appear among non-mutually-neutral species (cyclic alliances) when the interaction graph has more than a single loop [22,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. This is obtained for S = 4 by introducing crossed interactions with rate χ (see Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%