Rainfall variability maintains grass‐forb species coexistence

Hallett, Lauren M.; Shoemaker, Lauren G.; White, C. T.; Suding, Katharine N.

doi:10.1111/ele.13341

Cited by 100 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(153 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3A versus B), but rather individual species may preferentially require fluctuations. These results match insights from modern coexistence theory, even when focusing on a single trophic level in isolation (Hallett et al , 2019; Shoemaker & Melbourne, 2016). Indeed, the superior competitor in the diamond model is only mildly affected by fluctuations in the environment and predator populations, while both of these types of fluctuations increase the stability of the inferior competitor’s ( C 2 ) growth rate when rare.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…A unified framework that incorporates direct competition between species together with effects of predation is necessary for gaining a synthetic understanding of how biodiversity is maintained. Our extension of Ellner et al (2019), builds directly on the framework of modern coexistence theory (Chesson, 2000), including environmental fluctuations through time and space that can maintain coexistence among competitors via niche partitioning (Hallett et al , 2019; Letten et al , 2018). Critically, our extension of MCT also incorporates predation and fluctuations in predator abundances, allowing both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms to be incorporated simultaneously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the resident species are at steady state abundances and there is a negligible effect of the invader, , such that . We include the invader-resident comparison, however as it has important implications for the partitioning of coexistence into its mechanistic components, as coexistence can be fostered by factors that either benefit the invader or harm the resident (Ellner et al , 2019; Hallett et al , 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantifying the relative importance of competition, predation, and environmental variation for species coexistence

Shoemaker

Barner

Bittleston

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Coexistence theory and food web theory are two cornerstones of the longstanding effort 2 to understand how species coexist. Although competition and predation are known to act 3 simultaneously in communities, theory and empirical study of the two processes continue to 4 be developed independently. Here, we integrate modern coexistence theory and food web 5 theory to simultaneously quantify the relative importance of predation, competition, and 6 environmental fluctuations for species coexistence. We first examine coexistence in a classic 7 multi-trophic model, adding complexity to the food web using a novel machine learning ap-8 proach. We then apply our framework to a parameterized rocky intertidal food web model, 9 partitioning empirical coexistence dynamics. We find that both environmental fluctuation 10 and variation in predation contribute substantially to species coexistence. Unexpectedly, co-11 variation in these two forces tends to destabilize coexistence, leading to new insights about 12

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying the relative importance of competition, predation, and environmental variation for species coexistence

Shoemaker

Barner

Bittleston

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A unified framework that incorporates competition between species for shared resources or space together with effects of predation is necessary for gaining a synthetic understanding of how biodiversity is maintained. Our extension of Ellner et al (2019) builds directly on the framework of MCT (Chesson, 2000), including environmental fluctuations through time and space that can maintain coexistence among competitors via niche partitioning (Letten et al , 2018; Hallett et al , 2019). Critically, our extension of MCT for an environment‐predation decomposition incorporates predation and fluctuations in predator abundances, allowing both bottom‐up and top‐down mechanisms to be incorporated simultaneously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the relative importance of variation in predation and the environment for species coexistence

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coexistence and food web theory are two cornerstones of the long-standing effort to understand how species coexist. Although competition and predation are known to act simultaneously in communities, theory and empirical study of these processes continue to be developed largely independently. Here, we integrate modern coexistence theory and food web theory to simultaneously quantify the relative importance of predation and environmental fluctuations for species coexistence. We first examine coexistence in a theoretical, multitrophic model, adding complexity to the food web using machine learning approaches. We then apply our framework to a stochastic model of the rocky intertidal food web, partitioning empirical coexistence dynamics. We find the main effects of both environmental fluctuations and variation in predator abundances contribute substantially to species coexistence. Unexpectedly, their interaction tends to destabilise coexistence, leading to new insights about the role of bottom-up vs. top-down forces in both theory and the rocky intertidal ecosystem.

show abstract

“…235 received considerably less attention than the contribution of nonadditive responses (mainly 237 the storage effect). Nonlinear responses to coexistence were initially thought to be more 238 limited than for the latter (Chesson 1994), although recent studies suggest otherwise (Letten 239 et al 2018;Hallett et al 2019;Zepeda & Martorell 2019). Importantly, the contribution of 240 nonlinear responses to coexistence was thought to be limited to competition (e.g., (Chesson 241 1994(Chesson 241 , 2000) until very recently (Ellner et al 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disturbance-induced changes in size-structure promote coral biodiversity

Álvarez‐Noriega

Madin

Baird

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

25Reef-building coral assemblages are typically species-rich, yet the processes maintaining 26 coral biodiversity remain poorly understood. Disturbance has long been believed to promote 27 coral species coexistence by reducing the strength of competition. However, such 28 disturbance-induced effects have since been shown to be insufficient on their own to prevent 29 competitive exclusion. Nevertheless, Modern Coexistence Theory has revealed other 30 mechanisms by which disturbance and, more generally, environmental variation can favour 31 coexistence. Here, we formulate, calibrate, and analyze a size-structured, stochastic coral 32 competition model using field data from two common colony morphologies. These two coral 33 morphologies, tabular and digitate, differ in their size-dependent vulnerability to 34 dislodgement caused by wave action. We confirm that fluctuations in wave action can 35 promote coral species coexistence. However, using a recently proposed partitioning 36 framework, we show that, contrast to previous expectations, temporal variability in strength 37 of competition did not promote coexistence. Instead, coexistence was enabled by differential 38 fluctuations in size-dependent mortality among competitors. Frequent and intense 39 disturbances resulted in monocultures of digitate corals, which are more robust to wave 40 action than tabular corals. In contrast, infrequent or weak disturbances resulted in 41 monocultures of tabular corals. Coexistence was only possible under intermediate levels of 42 disturbance frequency and intensity. Given the sensitivity of coexistence to disturbance 43 frequency and intensity, anthropogenic changes in disturbance regimes are likely to affect 44 biodiversity in coral assemblages in ways that are not predictable from single population 45 models. 46 47 48 Reef-building coral assemblages are an example of the 'paradox of the plankton' 51 (Hutchinson 1961): they can be species-rich, even though species compete for a small 52 number of limiting resources, mainly space, light, and nutrients in the water column. 53

show abstract

Rainfall variability maintains grass‐forb species coexistence

Cited by 100 publications

References 54 publications

Quantifying the relative importance of competition, predation, and environmental variation for species coexistence

Quantifying the relative importance of competition, predation, and environmental variation for species coexistence

Quantifying the relative importance of variation in predation and the environment for species coexistence

Disturbance-induced changes in size-structure promote coral biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About