Temporally auto-correlated predator attacks structure ecological communities

Schreiber, Sebastian J.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2022.0150

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is also conceivable that non-coexistence is more than solely the absence of coexistence. For example, alternative stable states are driven by positive-frequency dependence, while coexistence is driven by negative-frequency dependence Mordecai, 2011; including the negative storage effect (Chesson, 1982(Chesson, , 1994Schreiber, 2021Schreiber, , 2022. More generally, in a meta-analysis of niche and fitness differences across different ecological communities, Buche et al (2022) found that niche differences of coexisting species pairs differ qualitatively from niche differences of competitively excluded species, independent of whether these were driven by positiveor negative-frequency dependence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building modern coexistence theory from the ground up: The role of community assembly

Spaak,

Schreiber

2023

Ecology Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern coexistence theory (MCT) is one of the leading methods to understand species coexistence. It uses invasion growth rates—the average, per‐capita growth rate of a rare species—to identify when and why species coexist. Despite significant advances in dissecting coexistence mechanisms when coexistence occurs, MCT relies on a ‘mutual invasibility’ condition designed for two‐species communities but poorly defined for species‐rich communities. Here, we review well‐known issues with this component of MCT and propose a solution based on recent mathematical advances. We propose a clear framework for expanding MCT to species‐rich communities and for understanding invasion resistance as well as coexistence, especially for communities that could not be analysed with MCT so far. Using two data‐driven community models from the literature, we illustrate the utility of our framework and highlight the opportunities for bridging the fields of community assembly and species coexistence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building modern coexistence theory from the ground up: The role of community assembly

Spaak,

Schreiber

2023

Ecology Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar effect occurs in long-lived species: if adults survive for many years, then they only need an occasional year of high recruitment (caused by high fecundity and high offspring survival) to persist. Other effects can produce buffered population growth as well (Schreiber, 2022).…”

Section: Box 2 the Storage Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous work has shown that when the environment is positively autocorrelated temporal niche partitioning is more able to promote coexistence (Johnson & Hastings, 2022; Miller & Klausmeier, 2017; Schreiber, 2022). We show this for our models in the appendix (Appendix S1: Sections S2.1.1 and S2.2.1).…”

Section: Assumption 1: Environmental Variation Causes Immediate Chang...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reexamining the storage effect: Why temporal variation in abiotic factors seems unlikely to cause coexistence

Stump

Vasseur

2023

Ecological Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The temporal storage effect—that species coexist by partitioning abiotic niches that vary in time—is thought to be an important explanation for how species coexist. However, empirical studies that measure multiple mechanisms often find the storage effect is weak. We believe this mismatch is because of a shortcoming of theoretical models used to study the storage effect: that while the storage effect is described as having just three requirements (partitioning of temporal variation, buffered population growth, and a covariance between environment and density‐dependence), models used to study the storage effect make four assumptions, which are mathematically subtle but biologically important. In this paper, we examine those assumptions. First, models assume that environmental variation leads to a rapid impact on density‐dependence. We find that delays in density‐dependence (including delays caused by competition between cohorts) weaken the storage effect. Second, models assume that intraspecific competition is almost identical to interspecific competition. We find that unless resource or predator partitioning are virtually absent, then variation‐independent mechanisms will overshadow the benefits of the storage effect. Third, models assume even though there is vast variation in the environment, species are equally adapted on average (i.e., zero fitness‐differences). We show that fitness differences are particularly problematic in the storage effect because specializing on temporally rare niches is far less effective than specializing on other types of rare niches. Finally, models assume that stochastic extinctions can be ignored, and invader growth can determine coexistence. We show that storage effects tend to reduce mean persistence times, even if invader growth rates are positive. These results suggest that the assumptions needed for the storage effect are strict: if the first or second assumption is relaxed, it will greatly weaken the stabilizing mechanism; if the third or fourth assumption is relaxed, it will create a diversity‐destroying effect that may undermine coexistence. We examine three real‐world communities—annual plants, tropical forests, and iguanid lizards—and find that empirical studies suggest that all three communities violate multiple assumptions. This suggests that the temporal storage effect is probably not an important explanation for species diversity in most systems.

show abstract

“…More recently, an increasing number of empirical studies have demonstrated that temporally fluctuating selection/environments are important in maintaining both genetic variation (Bergland et al, 2014; Machado et al, 2021; Rudman et al, 2022; Yi & Dean, 2013) and species diversity (Angert et al, 2009; Ellner et al, 2019; Hallett et al, 2019; Letten et al, 2018; Sommer, 1985; Zepeda & Martorell, 2019). Although the topic itself has a long history in ecology (reviewed in Barabás et al, 2018; Chesson, 2000b; Ellner et al, 2019; Stump & Vasseur, 2023; Yamamichi & Letten, 2022)and evolutionary biology (reviewed in Felsenstein, 1976; Frank, 2011; Gillespie, 1991; Hedrick, 1986; Hedrick, 2006; Hedrick et al, 1976; Johnson et al, 2023: see also Figure 1 and Figure S1), the recent accumulation of empirical evidence has coincided with renewed theoretical interest into the role of temporally fluctuating environments in maintaining genetic variation (Bertram & Masel, 2019b; Dean, 2018; Dean et al, 2017; Gulisija et al, 2016; Kim, 2023; Novak & Barton, 2017; Park & Kim, 2019; Schreiber, 2020; Svardal et al, 2015; Wittmann et al, 2017, 2023; Yamamichi et al, 2019; Yamamichi & Hoso, 2017) and species diversity (Barabás et al, 2018; Chesson, 2018; Ellner et al, 2019; Fung et al, 2022; Johnson & Hastings, 2022a, 2022b; Meyer et al, 2022; Pande et al, 2020; Schreiber, 2021, 2022; Schreiber et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eco‐evolutionary maintenance of diversity in fluctuating environments

Yamamichi,

Letten,

Schreiber

2023

Ecology Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing evidence suggests that temporally fluctuating environments are important in maintaining variation both within and between species. To date, however, studies of genetic variation within a population have been largely conducted by evolutionary biologists (particularly population geneticists), while population and community ecologists have concentrated more on diversity at the species level. Despite considerable conceptual overlap, the commonalities and differences of these two alternative paradigms have yet to come under close scrutiny. Here, we review theoretical and empirical studies in population genetics and community ecology focusing on the ‘temporal storage effect’ and synthesise theories of diversity maintenance across different levels of biological organisation. Drawing on Chesson's coexistence theory, we explain how temporally fluctuating environments promote the maintenance of genetic variation and species diversity. We propose a further synthesis of the two disciplines by comparing models employing traditional frequency‐dependent dynamics and those adopting density‐dependent dynamics. We then address how temporal fluctuations promote genetic and species diversity simultaneously via rapid evolution and eco‐evolutionary dynamics. Comparing and synthesising ecological and evolutionary approaches will accelerate our understanding of diversity maintenance in nature.

show abstract

Temporally auto-correlated predator attacks structure ecological communities

Cited by 5 publications

References 56 publications

Building modern coexistence theory from the ground up: The role of community assembly

Building modern coexistence theory from the ground up: The role of community assembly

Reexamining the storage effect: Why temporal variation in abiotic factors seems unlikely to cause coexistence

Eco‐evolutionary maintenance of diversity in fluctuating environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About