How the spatial scales of dispersal, competition, and environmental heterogeneity interact to affect coexistence

American Naturalist

Volumn 164, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 633-650

  Snyder, Robin E ^a   Chesson, Peter ^b  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Coexistence; Competition; Dispersal; Kernels; Spatial heterogeneity; Spatial scale

Indexed keywords

COEXISTENCE; COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); DISPERSAL; HETEROGENEITY;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ECOSYSTEM; FOURIER ANALYSIS; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; PLANT; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

ECOSYSTEM; FOURIER ANALYSIS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PLANT PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; PLANTS; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

EID: 8744266368     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/424969     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abrams, P. 2004. When does variation in resource growth allow robust coexistence of competing consumer species? Ecology 85:372-382.
2. Amarasekare, P., and R. M. Nisbet. 2001. Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics, and the local coexistence of competing species. American Naturalist 158:572-584.
3. Baskin, C., and J. Baskin. 1998. Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.
4. Bolker, B. M. 2003. Combining endogenous and exogenous variability in analytical population models. Theoretical Population Biology 64:255-270.
5. Bolker, B. M., and S. W. Pacala. 1999. Spatial moment equations for plant competition: understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. American Naturalist 153:575-602.
6. Chesson, P. 2000a. General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially varying environments. Theoretical Population Biology 58:211-237.
7. _. 2000b. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:343-366.
8. _. 2003. Quantifying and testing coexistence mechanisms arising from recruitment fluctuations. Theoretical Population Biology 64:345-357.
9. Chesson, P. L. 1985. Coexistence of competitors in spatially and temporally varying environments: a look at the combined effects of different sorts of variability. Theoretical Population Biology 28:263-287.
10. Chesson, P. L., and R. Warner. 1981. Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. American Naturalist 117:923-943.
11. Codeço, C., and J. Grover. 2001. Competition along a spatial gradient of resource supply: a microbial experimental model. American Naturalist 157:300-315.
12. Comins, H., and I. Noble. 1985. Dispersal, variability, and transient niches: species coexistence in a uniformly variable environment. American Naturalist 126:706-723.
13. Goldberg, D., T. Rajaniemi, J. Gurevitch, and A. Stewart-Oaten. 1999. Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118-1131.
14. Gotelli, N. J. 1995. A primer of ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.
15. Gurney, W. S. C., and R. M. Nisbet. 1976. Spatial pattern and the mechanism of population regulation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 59:361-370.
16. Lande, R., S. Engen, and B.-E. Sæther. 1999. Spatial scale of population synchrony: environmental correlation versus dispersal and density regulation. American Naturalist 154:271-281.
17. Levin, S. A. 1970. Community equilibria and stability, and an extension of the competitive exclusion principle. American Naturalist 104:413-423.
18. _. 2000. Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystems 3:498-506.
19. Levine, J., and M. Rees. 2002. Coexistence and relative abundance in annual plant assemblages: the roles of competition and colonization. American Naturalist 160:452-467.
20. Melbourne, B., A. Sears, M. Donahue, and P. Chesson. 2004. Applying scale transition theory to metacommunities in the field. In M. Holyoak, M. A. Leibold, and R. D. Holt, eds. Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (in press).
21. Mouquet, N., and M. Loreau. 2002. Coexistence in meta-communities: the regional similarity hypothesis. American Naturalist 159:420-426.
22. Muko, S., and Y. Iwasa. 2000. Species coexistence by permanent spatial heterogeneity in a lottery model. Theoretical Population Biology 57:273-284.
23. Murrell, D. J., and R. Law. 2003. Heteromyopia and the spatial coexistence of similar competitors. Ecology Letters 6:48-59.
24. Nisbet, R. M., and W. S. C. Gurney. 1982. Modelling fluctuating populations. Wiley, New York.
25. Pacala, S., and J. Roughgarden. 1982. Spatial heterogeneity and interspecific competition. Theoretical Population Biology 21:92-113.
26. Roughgarden, J. 1974. Population dynamics in a spatially varying environment: how population size "tracks" spatial variation in carrying capacity. American Naturalist 108:649-664.
27. Sears, A. L. 2004. Quantifying the effects of spatial environmental variation on dynamics in natural plant populations: field tests for covariance between response to the environment and competition. Ph.D. diss. University of California, Davis.
28. Shmida, A., and S. Ellner. 1984. Coexistence of plant species with similar niches. Vegetatio 58:29-55.
29. Shmida, A., and R. Whittaker. 1981. Pattern and biological microsite effects in two shrub communities, southern California. Ecology 62:234-251.
30. Snyder, R. E., and P. Chesson. 2003. Local dispersal can facilitate coexistence in the presence of permanent spatial heterogeneity. Ecology Letters 6:301-309.
31. Tilman, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2-16.