The May threshold and life-history allometry

Ginzburg, Lev; Bürger, Oskar; Damuth, John

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0452

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We appeal to theoreticians to precisely describe the scope of applicability of their models, especially from the point of view of DD. For empirically oriented ecologists, it is extremely important to study DD in natural populations, as the precise form of DD is rarely known (Ginzburg et al 2010 ). Such research was common in the 1960s, but mostly abandoned later.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extrinsic Mortality Can Shape Life-History Traits, Including Senescence

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Williams’ hypothesis is one of the most widely known ideas in life history evolution. It states that higher adult mortality should lead to faster and/or earlier senescence. Theoretically derived gradients, however, do not support this prediction. Increased awareness of this fact has caused a crisis of misinformation among theorists and empirical ecologists. We resolve this crisis by outlining key issues in the measurement of fitness, assumptions of density dependence, and their effect on extrinsic mortality. The classic gradients apply only to a narrow range of ecological contexts where density-dependence is either absent or present but with unrealistic stipulations. Re-deriving the classic gradients, using a more appropriate measure of fitness and incorporating density, shows that broad ecological contexts exist where Williams’ hypothesis is supported.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11692-018-9458-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extrinsic Mortality Can Shape Life-History Traits, Including Senescence

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). Given that increased temporal variability may lead to increased probability of extinction, over time only species with reproductive rates in a constrained range may have persisted (27,28). However, the mechanisms underlying such extinction dynamics remain highly debated (28).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluctuations of fish populations and the magnifying effects of fishing

Shelton

Mangel

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

187

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central and classic question in ecology is what causes populations to fluctuate in abundance. Understanding the interaction between natural drivers of fluctuating populations and human exploitation is an issue of paramount importance for conservation and natural resource management. Three main hypotheses have been proposed to explain fluctuations: (i) species interactions, such as predator-prey interactions, cause fluctuations, (ii) strongly nonlinear single-species dynamics cause fluctuations, and (iii) environmental variation cause fluctuations. We combine a general fisheries model with data from a global sample of fish species to assess how two of these hypothesis, nonlinear single-species dynamics and environmental variation, interact with human exploitation to affect the variability of fish populations. In contrast with recent analyses that suggest fishing drives increased fluctuations by changing intrinsic nonlinear dynamics, we show that singlespecies nonlinear dynamics alone, both in the presence and absence of fisheries, are unlikely to drive deterministic fluctuations in fish; nearly all fish populations fall into regions of stable dynamics. However, adding environmental variation dramatically alters the consequences of exploitation on the temporal variability of populations. In a variable environment, (i) the addition of mortality from fishing leads to increased temporal variability for all species examined, (ii) variability in recruitment rates of juveniles contributes substantially more to fluctuations than variation in adult mortality, and (iii) the correlation structure of juvenile and adult vital rates plays an important and underappreciated role in determining population fluctuations. Our results are robust to alternative model formulations and to a range of environmental autocorrelation.stock-recruitment | temporal fluctuations | density dependence P erhaps no question in population biology has generated more attention and debate over the past century than why populations fluctuate (1-4). The question remains relevant today because the causes of fluctuations have important implications for the management and conservation of natural resources (5). Answers to this question can be grouped into three general hypotheses: (i) species interactions (e.g., predator-prey interactions or disease) generate fluctuating and cyclic population dynamics (4, 6, 7); (ii) nonlinearity in single-species dynamics generates deterministic fluctuations (2, 8, 9); and (iii) variation in the environment determines variation in vital rates (e.g., survival or growth), which in turn drive variation in abundance (1, 10). If there is a strong message from ecology for the 21st century, it is that we should not expect a single mechanism to be solely responsible for generating fluctuating populations but recognize the potential contribution of each and work toward understanding how these factors interact to affect the variability of natural populations (11)(12)(13)(14). For exploited species, we may also ask how human harvesti...

show abstract

“…Systemic selection can be a powerful yet simple explanation of many ecological patterns, including ecological allometries, species interaction strengths, food-web metrics, and macroevolutionary patterns (e.g., [5,6]). This intellectual protocol for understanding ecological patterns has long been implicit in community ecology [7,8], but recent advances in theory suggest that it is time to make this principle more explicit and formal.…”

Section: Glossarymentioning

confidence: 99%