On testing the competition-colonization trade-off in a multispecies assemblage

American Naturalist

Volumn 168, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 704-709

  Cadotte, Marc William ^a,b   Mai, Donny V ^a   Jantz, Samuel ^a   Collins, Michael D ^a   Keele, Monica ^a   Drake, James A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Coexistence; Competitive exclusion; Dispersal; Diversity; Metacommunity; Microcosm

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; COLONIZATION; INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION; PLANT; POPULATION GROWTH; PROTOZOAN; SEED DISPERSAL;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PROTOZOON; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROTIFERA;

ANIMALS; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PROTOZOA; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROTIFERA;

PROTOZOA; ROTIFERA;

EID: 33750955677     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/508296     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Amarasekare, P. 2003. Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecology Letters 6:1109-1122.
2. Amarasekare, P., M. F. Hoopes, N. Mouquet, and M. Holyoak. 2004. Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive metacommunities. American Naturalist 164:310-326.
3. Cadotte, M. W. 2006. Metacommunity influences on community richness at multiple spatial scales: a microcosm experiment. Ecology 87:1008-1016.
4. Cadotte, M. W., and T. Fukami. 2005. Dispersal, spatial scale and species diversity in a hierarchically structured experimental landscape. Ecology Letters 8:548-557.
5. Cadotte, M. W., J. A. Drake, and T. Fukami. 2005. Constructing nature: laboratory models as necessary tools for investigating complex ecological communities. Advances in Ecological Research 37:333-353.
6. Cadotte, M. W., A. Fortner, and T. Fukami. 2006. The effects of enrichment, dispersal, predation and spatial scale on community structure. Oecologia (Berlin) 149:150-157.
7. Fox, J. W. 2002. Testing a simple rule for dominance in resource competition. American Naturalist 159:305-319.
8. Fukami, T. 2004. Assembly history interacts with ecosystem size to influence species diversity. Ecology 85:3234-3242.
9. Harrison, S., C. D. Thomas, and T. M. Lewinsohn. 1995. Testing a metapopulation model of coexistence in the insect community on ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). American Naturalist 145:546-562.
10. Hastings, A. 1980. Disturbance, coexistence, history and competition for space. Theoretical Population Biology 22:323-338.
11. -. 2004. Transients: the key to long-term ecological understanding? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:39-45.
12. Holt, A. R., P. H. Warren, and K. J. Gaston. 2004. The importance of habitat heterogeneity, biotic interactions and dispersal in abundance-occupancy relationships. Journal of Animal Ecology 73:841-851.
13. Holt, R. D., J. H. Lawton, and K. J. Gaston. 1997. On the relationship between range size and local abundance: back to basics. Oikos 78:183-190.
14. Holyoak, M. 2000. Habitat patch arrangement and metapopulation persistence of predators and prey. American Naturalist 156:378-389.
15. Holyoak, M., and S. P. Lawler. 1996. Persistence of an extinction-prone predator-prey interaction through metapopulation dynamics. Ecology 77:1867-1879.
16. Jakobsson, A., and O. Eriksson. 2000. A comparative study of seed number, seed size, seedling size and recruitment in grassland plots. Oikos 88:494-502.
17. -. 2003. Trade-offs between dispersal and competitive ability: a comparative study of wind-dispersed Asteraceae forbs. Evolutionary Ecology 14:233-246.
18. Kneitel, J. M., and J. M. Chase. 2004. Trade-offs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence. Ecology Letters 7:69-80.
19. Levine, J. M., and M. Rees. 2002. Coexistence and relative abundance in annual plant assemblages: the roles of competition and colonization. American Naturalist 160:452-467.
20. Levins, R., and D. Culver. 1971. Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 68:1246-1248.
21. Lockwood, J. L., P. Cassey, and T. Blackburn. 2005. The role of progagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:223-228.
22. McGrady-Steed, J., and P. J. Morin. 2000. Biodiversity, density compensation, and the dynamics of populations and functional groups. Ecology 81:361-373.
23. Rees, M. 1995. Community structure in sand dune annuals: is seed weight a key quantity? Journal of Ecology 83:857-863.
24. Turnbull, L. A., M. Rees, and M. J. Crawley. 1999. Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade-off: a sowing experiment. Journal of Ecology 87:899-912.
25. Warren, P. H. 1996. The effects of between-habitat dispersal rate on protist communities and metacommunities in microcosms at two spatial scales. Oecologia (Berlin) 105:132-140.
26. Warren, P. H., R. Law, and A. J. Weatherby. 2006. Invasion biology as a community process: messages from microbial microcosms. Pages 343-367 in M. W. Cadotte, S. M. McMahon, and T. Fukami, eds. Conceptual ecology and invasion biology: reciprocal approaches to nature. Springer, Dordrecht.
27. Yu, D. W., and H. B. Wilson. 2001. The competition-colonization trade-off is dead; long live the competition-colonization trade-off. American Naturalist 158:49-63.