Ontogenetic diet shifts result in niche partitioning between two consumer species irrespective of competitive abilities

American Naturalist

Volumn 176, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 625-637

  Schellekens, Tim ^a,c   De Roos, André M ^b   Persson, Lennart ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biomass model; Coexistence; Competition; Life history; Resource use; Stage structure

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; COEXISTENCE; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); CRUSTACEAN; DIET; INTRASPECIFIC INTERACTION; JUVENILE; LIFE HISTORY; NUMERICAL MODEL; ONTOGENY; RESOURCE USE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; CLADOCERA; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; COPEPOD; DIET; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HISTOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; CLADOCERA; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; COPEPODA; DIET; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; POPULATION DENSITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

COPEPODA; DAPHNIIDAE;

EID: 78349233099     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/656488     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Adrian, R., and B. Schneider-Olt. 1999. Top-down effects of crustacean zooplankton on pelagic microorganisms in a mesotrophic lake. Journal of Plankton Research 21:2175-2190.
2. Bern, L. 1994. Particle selection over a broad size range by crustacean zooplankton. Freshwater Biology 32:105-112.
3. De Roos, A. M., T. Schellekens, T. van Kooten, K. van de Wolfshaar, D. Claessen, and L. Persson. 2007. Food-dependent growth leads to overcompensation in stage-specific biomass when mortality increases: the influence of maturation versus reproduction regulation. American Naturalist 170:E59-E76.
4. -. 2008. Simplifying a physiologically structured population model to a stage-structured biomass model. Theoretical Population Biology 73:47-62.
5. Gause, G. F. 1934. The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.
6. Gillooly, J. F., J. H. Brown, G. B. West, V. M. Savage, and E. L. Charnov. 2001. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293:2248-2251.
7. Grover, J. P., and R. D. Holt. 1998. Disentangling resource and apparent competition: realistic models for plant-herbivore communities. Journal of Theoretical Biology 191:353-376.
8. Guill, C. 2009. Alternative dynamical states in stage-structured consumer populations. Theoretical Population Biology 76:168-178.
9. Haefner, J. W., and J. L. Edson. 1984. Community invasion by complex life cycles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 108:377-404.
10. Hansen, P. J., P. K. Bjornsen, and B. W. Hansen. 1997. Zooplankton grazing and growth: scaling within the 2-2,000-mm body size range. Limnology and Oceanography 42:687-704.
11. Holt, R. D., J. Grover, and D. Tilman. 1994. Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. American Naturalist 144:741-771.
12. Huisman, J., and F. J. Weissing. 1999. Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos. Nature 402:407-410.
13. Kerfoot, W. C., and K. L. Kirk. 1991. Degree of taste discrimination among suspension-feeding cladocerans and copepods: implications for detritivory and herbivory. Limnology and Oceanography 36:1107-1123.
14. Lehman, J. T. 1988. Ecological principles affecting community structure and secondary production by zooplankton in marine and fresh-water environments. Limnology and Oceanography 33:931-945.
15. Leibold, M. A. 1996. A graphical model of keystone predators in food webs: trophic regulation of abundance, incidence, and diversity patterns in communities. American Naturalist 147:784-812.
16. Loreau, M., and W. Ebenhoh. 1994. Competitive-exclusion and coexistence of species with complex life-cycles. Theoretical Population Biology 46:58-77.
17. McCann, K. 1998. Density-dependent coexistence in fish communities. Ecology 79:2957-2967.
18. Moll, J. D., and J. S. Brown. 2008. Competition and coexistence with multiple life-history stages. American Naturalist 171:839-843.
19. Mougi, A., and K. Nishimura. 2005. Coexistence of competitive species with a stage-structured life cycle. Ecological Research 20:581-589.
20. Pacala, S.W., and D. Tilman. 1994. Limiting similarity in mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in heterogeneous environments. American Naturalist 143:222-257.
21. Peters, R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22. Polis, G. A., R. D. Holt, B. A. Menge, and K. O. Winemiller. 1996. Time, space and life history: influences on food webs. Pages 435-460 in G. A. Polis and K. O. Winemiller, eds. Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman & Hall, New York.
23. Schoener, T. W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27-39.
24. Schreiber, S., and V. H.W. Rudolf. 2008. Crossing habitat boundaries: coupling dynamics of ecosystems through complex life cycles. Ecology Letters 11:576-587.
25. Schulze, P. C., H. E. Zagarese, and C. E. Williamson. 1995. Competition between crustacean zooplankton in continuous cultures. Limnology and Oceanography 40:33-45.
26. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Monographs in Population Biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
27. Werner, E. E., and J. F. Gilliam. 1984. The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15:393-425.
28. Yodzis, P., and S. Innes. 1992. Body size and consumer-resource dynamics. American Naturalist 139:1151-1175.