Search

Background: The complexity and dynamical nature of community interactions make modeling a useful tool for understanding how communities develop over time and how they respond to external perturbations. Large community-evolution models (LCEMs) are particularly promising, since they can address both ecological and evolutionary questions, and can give rise to richly structured and diverse model communities. Questions: Which types of models have been used to study community structure and what are their key features and limitations? How do adaptations and/or invasions affect community formation? Which mechanisms promote diverse and table communities? What are the implications of LCEMs for management and conservation? What are the key challenges for future research? Models considered: Static models of community structure, demographic community models, and small and large community- evolution models. Conclusions: LCEMs encompass a variety of modeled traits and interactions, demographic dynamics, and evolutionary dynamics. They are able to reproduce empirical community structures. Already, they have generated new insights, such as the dual role of competition, which limits diversity through competitive exclusion, yet facilitates diversity through speciation. Other critical factors determining eventual community structure are the shape of trade-off functions, inclusion of adaptive foraging, and energy availability. A particularly interesting feature of LCEMs is that these models not only help to contrast outcomes of community formation via species assembly with those of community formation via gradual evolution and speciation, but that they can furthermore unify the underlying invasion processes and evolutionary processes into a single framework.

Background: The complexity and dynamical nature of community interactions make modeling a useful tool for understanding how communities develop over time and how they respond to external perturbations. Large community-evolution models (LCEMs) are particularly promising, since they can address both ecological and evolutionary questions, and can give rise to richly structured and diverse model communities. Questions: Which types of models have been used to study community structure and what are their key features and limitations? How do adaptations and/or invasions affect community formation? Which mechanisms promote diverse and table communities? What are the implications of LCEMs for management and conservation? What are the key challenges for future research? Models considered: Static models of community structure, demographic community models, and small and large community- evolution models. Conclusions: LCEMs encompass a variety of modeled traits and interactions, demographic dynamics, and evolutionary dynamics. They are able to reproduce empirical community structures. Already, they have generated new insights, such as the dual role of competition, which limits diversity through competitive exclusion, yet facilitates diversity through speciation. Other critical factors determining eventual community structure are the shape of trade-off functions, inclusion of adaptive foraging, and energy availability. A particularly interesting feature of LCEMs is that these models not only help to contrast outcomes of community formation via species assembly with those of community formation via gradual evolution and speciation, but that they can furthermore unify the underlying invasion processes and evolutionary processes into a single framework.

Background: The complexity and dynamical nature of community interactions make modeling a useful tool for understanding how communities develop over time and how they respond to external perturbations. Large community-evolution models (LCEMs) are particularly promising, since they can address both ecological and evolutionary questions, and can give rise to richly structured and diverse model communities. Questions: Which types of models have been used to study community structure and what are their key features and limitations? How do adaptations and/or invasions affect community formation? Which mechanisms promote diverse and table communities? What are the implications of LCEMs for management and conservation? What are the key challenges for future research? Models considered: Static models of community structure, demographic community models, and small and large community- evolution models. Conclusions: LCEMs encompass a variety of modeled traits and interactions, demographic dynamics, and evolutionary dynamics. They are able to reproduce empirical community structures. Already, they have generated new insights, such as the dual role of competition, which limits diversity through competitive exclusion, yet facilitates diversity through speciation. Other critical factors determining eventual community structure are the shape of trade-off functions, inclusion of adaptive foraging, and energy availability. A particularly interesting feature of LCEMs is that these models not only help to contrast outcomes of community formation via species assembly with those of community formation via gradual evolution and speciation, but that they can furthermore unify the underlying invasion processes and evolutionary processes into a single framework.

Omnivory is omnipresent in natural communities. However, most theoretical models predict that omnivory should be rare, especially at high basal productivity. To address this incongruity, we consider as an example benthic food webs with omnivory. We present a mathematical analysis of simple benthic food webs in which a number of mechanisms promote persistence of omnivory. As a model system, we focus on the interaction between detritus, bacteria and deposit feeders that feed on both bacteria and detritus. Biomass patterns change with increasing basal productivity, triggering mechanisms that weaken the interactions between components of omnivorous interactions. Consequently, these mechanisms extend the range of organic input rates at which omnivorous interactions persist, and prevent exclusion, promoting omnivorous interactions in productive environments. These mechanisms give potential explanations for the high incidence of omnivory in benthic communities and shed insight on the persistence of omnivory in other communities., Omnivory is omnipresent in natural communities. However, most theoretical models predict that omnivory should be rare, especially at high basal productivity. To address this incongruity, we consider as an example benthic food webs with omnivory. We present a mathematical analysis of simple benthic food webs in which a number of mechanisms promote persistence of omnivory. As a model system, we focus on the interaction between detritus, bacteria and deposit feeders that feed on both bacteria and detritus. Biomass patterns change with increasing basal productivity, triggering mechanisms that weaken the interactions between components of omnivorous interactions. Consequently, these mechanisms extend the range of organic input rates at which omnivorous interactions persist, and prevent exclusion, promoting omnivorous interactions in productive environments. These mechanisms give potential explanations for the high incidence of omnivory in benthic communities and shed insight on the persistence of omnivory in other communities.

Omnivory is omnipresent in natural communities. However, most theoretical models predict that omnivory should be rare, especially at high basal productivity. To address this incongruity, we consider as an example benthic food webs with omnivory. We present a mathematical analysis of simple benthic food webs in which a number of mechanisms promote persistence of omnivory. As a model system, we focus on the interaction between detritus, bacteria and deposit feeders that feed on both bacteria and detritus. Biomass patterns change with increasing basal productivity, triggering mechanisms that weaken the interactions between components of omnivorous interactions. Consequently, these mechanisms extend the range of organic input rates at which omnivorous interactions persist, and prevent exclusion, promoting omnivorous interactions in productive environments. These mechanisms give potential explanations for the high incidence of omnivory in benthic communities and shed insight on the persistence of omnivory in other communities., Omnivory is omnipresent in natural communities. However, most theoretical models predict that omnivory should be rare, especially at high basal productivity. To address this incongruity, we consider as an example benthic food webs with omnivory. We present a mathematical analysis of simple benthic food webs in which a number of mechanisms promote persistence of omnivory. As a model system, we focus on the interaction between detritus, bacteria and deposit feeders that feed on both bacteria and detritus. Biomass patterns change with increasing basal productivity, triggering mechanisms that weaken the interactions between components of omnivorous interactions. Consequently, these mechanisms extend the range of organic input rates at which omnivorous interactions persist, and prevent exclusion, promoting omnivorous interactions in productive environments. These mechanisms give potential explanations for the high incidence of omnivory in benthic communities and shed insight on the persistence of omnivory in other communities.

Competition and predation are fundamental interactions structuring food webs. However, rather than always following these neat theoretical categories, mixed interactions are ubiquitous in nature. Of particular importance are omnivorous species, such as intraguild predators that can both compete with and predate on their prey. Here, we examine tradeoffs between competitive and predatory capacities by analysing the entire continuum of food web configurations existing between purely predator-prey and purely competitive interactions of two consumers subsisting on a single resource. Our results show that the range of conditions allowing for coexistence of the consumers is maximized at intermediately strong tradeoffs. Even though coexistence under weak tradeoffs and under very strong tradeoffs is also possible, it occurs under much more restrictive conditions. We explain these findings by an intricate interplay between energy acquisition and interaction strength.

Competition and predation are fundamental interactions structuring food webs. However, rather than following these neat theoretical categories, mixed interactions are ubiquitous in nature. Of particular importance are omnivorous species, such as intra-guild predators that can both compete with and predate on their prey. Here we examine trade-offs between competitive and predatory capacities by analyzing the entire continuum of food web configurations existing between purely predator-prey and purely competitive interactions of two consumers subsisting on a single resource. Our results show that the range of conditions allowing for coexistence of the consumers is maximized at intermediately strong trade-offs. Even though coexistence under weak trade-offs and under very strong trade-offs is also possible, it occurs under much more restrictive conditions. We explain these findings by an intricate interplay between energy acquisition and interaction strength.

Competition and predation are fundamental interactions structuring food webs. However, rather than always following these neat theoretical categories, mixed interactions are ubiquitous in nature. Of particular importance are omnivorous species, such as intraguild predators that can both compete with and predate on their prey. Here, we examine tradeoffs between competitive and predatory capacities by analysing the entire continuum of food web configurations existing between purely predator-prey and purely competitive interactions of two consumers subsisting on a single resource. Our results show that the range of conditions allowing for coexistence of the consumers is maximized at intermediately strong tradeoffs. Even though coexistence under weak tradeoffs and under very strong tradeoffs is also possible, it occurs under much more restrictive conditions. We explain these findings by an intricate interplay between energy acquisition and interaction strength.

Competition and predation are fundamental interactions structuring food webs. However, rather than following these neat theoretical categories, mixed interactions are ubiquitous in nature. Of particular importance are omnivorous species, such as intra-guild predators that can both compete with and predate on their prey. Here we examine trade-offs between competitive and predatory capacities by analyzing the entire continuum of food web configurations existing between purely predator-prey and purely competitive interactions of two consumers subsisting on a single resource. Our results show that the range of conditions allowing for coexistence of the consumers is maximized at intermediately strong trade-offs. Even though coexistence under weak trade-offs and under very strong trade-offs is also possible, it occurs under much more restrictive conditions. We explain these findings by an intricate interplay between energy acquisition and interaction strength.

Competition and predation are fundamental interactions structuring food webs. However, rather than following these neat theoretical categories, mixed interactions are ubiquitous in nature. Of particular importance are omnivorous species, such as intra-guild predators that can both compete with and predate on their prey. Here we examine trade-offs between competitive and predatory capacities by analyzing the entire continuum of food web configurations existing between purely predator-prey and purely competitive interactions of two consumers subsisting on a single resource. Our results show that the range of conditions allowing for coexistence of the consumers is maximized at intermediately strong trade-offs. Even though coexistence under weak trade-offs and under very strong trade-offs is also possible, it occurs under much more restrictive conditions. We explain these findings by an intricate interplay between energy acquisition and interaction strength.