Coexistence in a metacommunity: The competition-colonization trade-off is not dead

Ecology Letters

Volumn 9, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 897-907

  Calcagno, V ^a   Mouquet, N ^a   Jarne, P ^b   David, P ^b  

^a INSTITUT DES SCIENCES DE L EVOLUTION   (France)

^b CENTRE D ECOLOGIE FONCTIONNELLE ET EVOLUTIVE   (France)

Author keywords

Asymmetric; Coexistence; Colonization; Competition; Dissimilarity; Dominance; Preemption; Similarity; Spatial; Trade off

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; COLONIZATION; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM;

ANIMAL; ECOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; ECOLOGY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

EID: 33746760260     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00930.x     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Adler, F.R. & Mosquera, J. (2000). Is space necessary? Interference competition and limits to biodiversity. Ecology, 81, 3226-3232.
2. Amarasekare, P. (2002). Interference competition and species coexistence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B, Biol. Sci., 269, 2541-2550.
3. Amarasekare, P. (2003). Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol. Lett., 6, 1109-1122.
4. Amarasekare, P., Hoopes, M.F., Mouquet, N. & Holyoak, M., (2004). Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive metacommunities. Am. Nat., 164, 310-326.
5. Banks, J.E. (1997). Do imperfect trade-offs affect the extinction debt phenomenon? Ecology, 78, 1597-1601.
6. Chave, J., Muller-Landau, H.C. & Levin, S.A. (2002). Comparing classical community models: theoretical consequences for patterns of diversity. Am. Nat., 159, 1-23.
7. Chesson, P. (2000). Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 31, 343-366.
8. Geritz, S.A.H., van der Meijden, E. & Metz, J.A.J. (1999). Evolutionary dynamics of seed size and seedling competitive ability. Theor. Popul. Biol., 55, 324-343.
9. Geritz, S.A.H., Metz, J.A.J., Klinkhamer, P.G.L. & DeJong, T.J. (1988). Competition in safe-sites. Theor. Popul. Biol., 33, 161-180.
10. Goldberg, D.E & Landa, K. (1991). Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J. Ecol., 79, 1013-1030.
11. Goldwasser, L., Cook, J. & Silverman E.D. (1994). The effects of variability on metapopulation dynamics and rates of invasion. Ecology, 75, 40-47.
12. Hanski, I. (1983). Coexistence of competitors in patchy environments. Ecology, 64, 493-500.
13. Hastings, A. (1980). Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space. Theor. Popul. Biol., 18, 363-373.
14. Higgins, S.I. & Cain, M.L. (2002). Spatially realistic plant metapopulation models and the colonization-competition trade-off. J. Ecol., 90, 616-626.
15. Hurtt, G.C. & Pacala, S.W. (1995). The consequences of recruitment limitation: reconciling chance, history and competitive differences between plants. J. Theor. Biol., 176, 1-12.
16. Jansen, V.A.A. & Kokkoris, G.D. (2003). Complexity and stability revisited. Ecol. Lett. 6, 498-502.
17. Kinzig, A.P., Levin, S.A., Dushoff, J. & Pacala, S. (1999). Limiting similarity, species packing, and system stability for hierarchical competition-colonization models. Am. Nat., 153, 371-383.
18. Kisdi, E. & Geritz, S.A.H. (2003a). Competition-colonization trade-off between perennial plants: exclusion of the rare species, hysteresis effects and the robustness of co-existence under replacement competition. Evol. Ecol. Res., 5, 529-548.
19. Kisdi, E. & Geritz, S.A.H. (2003b). On the coexistence of perennial plants by the competition-colonization trade-off. Am. Nat., 161, 350-354.
20. Kokkoris, G.D., Troumbis, A.Y. & Lawton, J.H. (1999). Patterns of species interaction strength in assembled theoretical competition communities. Ecol. Lett., 2, 70-74.
21. Kokkoris, G.D., Jansen, V.A.A., Loreau, M. & Troumbis, A.Y. (2002). Variability in interaction strength and implications for biodiversity. J. Anim. Ecol., 71, 362-371.
22. Kondoh, M. (2001). Unifying the relationships of species richness to productivity and disturbance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B, Biol. Sci., 268, 269-271.
23. Leibold, M.A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J.M., Hoopes, M.F. et al. (2004). The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett., 7, 601-613.
24. Levine, J.M. & Rees M. (2002). Coexistence and relative abundance in annual plant assemblages: the roles of competition and colonization. Am. Nat., 160, 452-467.
25. Levins, R. (1969). Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am., 15, 237-240.
26. Levins, R. & Culver, D. (1971). Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 6, 1246-1248.
27. May, R.M. & Nowak, M.A. (1994). Superinfection metapopulation dynamics, and the evolution of diversity. J. Theor. Biol., 170, 95-114.
28. Meszéna, G., Gyllenberg, M., Pasztor, L. & Metz, J.A.J. (2006). Competitive exclusion and limiting similarity: a unified theory. Theor. Popul. Biol., 69, 68-87.
29. Nee, S. & May, R.M. (1992). Dynamics of metapopulations: habitat destruction and competitive coexistence. J. Anim. Ecol., 61, 37-40.
30. Nowak, M.A. & May, R.M. (1994). Superinfection and the evolution of parasite virulence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B, Biol. Sci., 255, 81-89.
31. Rozdilsky, I.D. & Stone, L. (2001). Complexity can enhance stability in competitive systems. Ecol. Lett. 4, 397-400.
32. Skellam, J.G. (1951). Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika, 38, 196-218.
33. Tilman, D. (1994). Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology, 75, 2-16.
34. Tilman, D. (2004). Niche trade-offs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 10854-10861.
35. Tilman, D., May, R.M., Lehman, C.L. & Nowak, M.A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371, 65-66.
36. Yu, D.W. & Wilson, H.B. (2001). The competition-colonization trade-off is dead: long live the competition-colonization trade-off. Am. Nat., 158, 49-63.