Search

Explaining coexistence in species-rich communities of primary producers remains a challenge for ecologists because of their likely competition for shared resources. Following Hutchinson's seminal suggestion, many theoreticians have tried to create diversity through a fluctuating environment, which impairs or slows down competitive exclusion. However, fluctuating-environment models often only produce a dozen of coexisting species at best. Here, we investigate how to create richer communities in fluctuating environments, using an empirically parameterized model. Building on the forced Lotka-Volterra model of Scranton and Vasseur (Theor Ecol 9(3):353-363, 2016), inspired by phytoplankton communities, we have investigated the effect of two coexistence mechanisms, namely the storage effect and higher intra- than interspecific competition strengths (i.e., strong self-regulation). We tuned the intra/inter competition ratio based on empirical analyses, in which self-regulation dominates interspecific interactions. Although a strong self-regulation maintained more species (50%) than the storage effect (25%), we show that none of the two coexistence mechanisms considered could ensure the coexistence of all species alone. Realistic seasonal environments only aggravated that picture, as they decreased persistence relative to a random environment. However, strong self-regulation and the storage effect combined superadditively so that all species could persist with both mechanisms at work. Our results suggest that combining different coexistence mechanisms into community models might be more fruitful than trying to find which mechanism best explains diversity. We additionally highlight that while biomass-trait distributions provide some clues regarding coexistence mechanisms, they cannot indicate unequivocally which mechanisms are at play., Comment: 27 pages, 9 figures, Theor Ecol (2019)

Arditi and Ginzburg (2012) propose ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with ratio-dependent functional responses as the new null model for predation, based on their earlier work on ratio-dependent food chains and a number of functional response measurements. Here, I discuss some of their claims, arguing for a flexible and problem-driven approach to predator–prey modeling. Models to understand population cycles and models to predict the effect of basal enrichment on food chains need not be the same. While ratio-dependent functional responses in ODE models might sometimes be useful as limit cases for food chains, they are not intrinsically more useful than prey-dependent models to understand the effect of a given predator on prey population dynamics—and sometimes less useful, given the small temporal scales considered in many models. “Instantism” is showed to be an invalid criticism when ODEs are interpreted as describing average trajectories of stochastic birth–death processes. Moreover, other modeling frameworks with strong ties to time series statistics, such as stochastic difference equations, should be promoted to improve the feedback loop between field and theoretical research. The main problems of current trophic ecology do not lie in a wrong null model, as ecologists have already several at their disposal. The loose connection of ODE models with empirical data and spatial/temporal scaling up of empirical measurements constitute more serious challenges to our understanding of trophic interactions and their consequences on ecosystem functioning.

There is a large variation in home range size within species, yet few models relate that variation to demographic and life-history traits. We derive an approximate deterministic population dynamics model keeping track of spatial structure, via spatial moment equations, from an individual-based spatial consumer-resource model; where space-use of consumers resembles that of central place foragers. Using invasion analyses, we investigate how the evolutionarily stable home range size of the consumer depends on a number of ecological and behavioral traits of both the resource and the consumer. We show that any trait variation leading to a decreased overall resource production or an increased spatial segregation between consumer and resource acts to increase consumer home range size. In this way, we extend theoretical predictions on optimal territory size to a larger range of ecological scenarios where home ranges overlap and population dynamics feedbacks are possible. Consideration of spatial traits such as dispersal distances also generates new results: (1) consumer home range size decreases with increased resource dispersal distance, and (2) when consumer agonistic behavior is weak, more philopatric consumers have larger home ranges. Finally, our results emphasize the role of the spatial correlation between consumer and resource distributions in determining home range size, and suggest resource dispersion is less important.