Species diversity, invasion, and alternative community states in sequentially assembled communities

American Naturalist

Volumn 178, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 411-418

  Jiang, Lin ^a   Brady, Lauren ^b   Tan, Jiaqi ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b KENYON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Alternative stable states; Biological invasions; Community assembly; Community invasibility; Priority effects; Species diversity

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; BACTERIVORY; BIOLOGICAL INVASION; COLONIZATION; DOMINANCE; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PROTIST; RESIDENT POPULATION; RESOURCE USE; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

ARTICLE; INTRODUCED SPECIES; PARAMECIUM AURELIA; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; TETRAHYMENA PYRIFORMIS;

INTRODUCED SPECIES; PARAMECIUM AURELIA; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; TETRAHYMENA PYRIFORMIS;

PROTISTA;

EID: 80051524698     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/661242     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Almany, G. R. 2004. Priority effects in coral reef fish communities of the Great Barrier Reef. Ecology 85:2872-2880.
2. Cardinale, B. J., J. P. Wright, M. W. Cadotte, I. T. Carroll, A. Hector, D. S. Srivastava, M. Loreau, et al. 2007. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104:18123-18128.
3. Chase, J. M. 2003. Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia (Berlin) 136:489-498.
4. Chase, J. M. 2007. Drought mediates the importance of stochastic community assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104:17430-17434.
5. Chase, J. M. 2010. Stochastic community assembly causes higher biodiversity in more productive environments. Science 328:1388-1391.
6. Darwin, C. 1859. The origin of species. J. Murray, London.
7. Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, London.
8. Fargione, J., C. S. Brown, and D. Tilman. 2003. Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 100:8916-8920.
9. Fargione, J. E., and D. Tilman. 2005. Diversity decreases invasion via both sampling and complementarity effects. Ecology Letters 8:604-611.
10. Fox, J. W. 2002. Testing a simple rule for dominance in resource competition. American Naturalist 159:305-319.
11. Fridley, J. D., J. J. Stachowicz, S. Naeem, D. F. Sax, E. W. Seabloom, M. D. Smith, T. J. Stohlgren, et al. 2007. The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology 88: 3-17.
12. Fukami, T. 2004. Assembly history interacts with ecosystem size to influence species diversity. Ecology 85:3234-3242.
13. Fukami, T. 2004. Community assembly along a species pool gradient: implications for multiple-scale patterns of species diversity. Population Ecology 46:137-147.
14. Fukami, T. 2010. Community assembly dynamics in space. Pages 45-54 in H. A. Verhoef and P. J. Morin, eds. Community ecology: processes, models, and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
15. Fukami, T., and P. J. Morin. 2003. Productivity-biodiversity relationships depend on the history of community assembly. Nature 424:423-426.
16. Fukami, T., I. A. Dickie, J. P. Wilkie, B. C. Paulus, D. Park, A. Roberts, P. K. Buchanan, et al. 2010. Assembly history dictates ecosystem functioning: evidence from wood decomposer communities. Ecology Letters 13:675-684.
17. Herben, T., B. Mandak, K. Bimova, and Z. Munzbergova. 2004. Invasibility and species richness of a community: a neutral model and a survey of published data. Ecology 85:3223-3233.
18. Jiang, L., and S. N. Patel. 2008. Community assembly in the presence of disturbance: a microcosm experiment. Ecology 89:1931-1940.
19. Jiang, L., S. Q. Wan, and L. H. Li. 2009. Species diversity and productivity: why do results of diversity-manipulation experiments differ from natural patterns? Journal of Ecology 97:603-608.
20. Jiang, L., J. Q. Tan, and Z. C. Pu. 2010. An experimental test of Darwin's naturalization hypothesis. American Naturalist 175:415-423.
21. Jiang, L., H. Joshi, S. K. Flakes, and Y. Jung. 2011. Alternative community compositional and dynamical states: the dual consequences of assembly history. Journal of Animal Ecology 80:577-585.
22. Korner, C., J. Stocklin, L. Reuther-Thiebaud, and S. Pelaez-Riedl. 2008. Small differences in arrival time influence composition and productivity of plant communities. New Phytologist 177:698-705.
23. Law, R., and R. D. Morton. 1993. Alternative permanent states of ecological communities. Ecology 74:1347-1361.
24. Levine, J. M., T. Kennedy, and S. Naeem. 2002. Neighbourhood scale effects of species diversity on biological invasions and their relationship to community patterns. Pages 114-124 in M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, eds. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York.
25. Loreau, M. 1998. Separating sampling and other effects in biodiversity experiments. Oikos 82:600-602.
26. Loreau, M., and A. Hector. 2001. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72-76.
27. Sax, D. F., and S. D. Gaines. 2003. Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 561-566.
28. Tilman, D. 2004. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101:10854-10861.
29. Wolda, H. 1981. Similarity indexes, sample-size and diversity. Oecologia (Berlin) 50:296-302.
30. Zhang, Q. G., and D. Y. Zhang. 2007. Colonization sequence influences selection and complementarity effects on biomass production in experimental algal microcosms. Oikos 116:1748-1758.