Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:42:29.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter Seven - Traits, states and rates: understanding coexistence in forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Drew W. Purves
Affiliation:
Microsoft Research Cambridge
Mark C. Vanderwel
Affiliation:
Microsoft Research Cambridge
David A. Coomes
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
David F. R. P. Burslem
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
William D. Simonson
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Introduction: why do tree species coexist?

The question of why there is more than one plant species on Earth is probably not one for ecology. Rather, it would appear to us at least that it is up to systems biology and evolutionary biology to explain why the enormous variation in structure and function exhibited by individual plants – a variation that makes sense given the huge range of physical environments that they occupy – occurs primarily as species-to-species variation, rather than as variation among ecotypes via local adaptation, or variation among individuals via phenotypic plasticity. However, given that plant species are so very different, the question of why we appear to observe the long-term co-occurrence of multiple species in the same region certainly is a question for ecology, so much so that the paradox of coexistence has remained central to community ecology for decades (e.g. Gause 1934; Grubb 1977; Hutchinson 1961; MacArthur 1970).

An important recent development has been the realisation, thanks to neutral theory, that the long-term co-occurrence of multiple taxonomic species is not, by itself, a paradox at all (Chave 2004; Hubbell 2001). We now know that it could take an enormous amount of time for a mixed community to drift to monodominance in any one region, if species were indistinguishable in terms of their traits. But this still leaves the challenge of explaining why we observe the long-term co-occurrence of species that are measurably different in traits that obviously affect fitness, such as growth, mortality and reproductive rates (see Purves & Turnbull 2010). Theoretical ecology has provided one kind of answer to this question, by identifying a suite of fundamental mechanisms that can maintain the coexistence of multiple species (Chesson 2000a). Although it is likely that there are new mechanisms still to be discovered, theoretical ecologists are almost entirely agreed that coexistence requires some form of negative feedback: if one species becomes too dominant, its performance declines, which in turn reduces its abundance; the opposite occurs for species that drift to abundances that are too low (Chesson 2000a; and for forests see Dislich, Johst & Huth 2010). In the presence of such negative feedbacks, communities can exhibit stable coexistence of multiple species, where the community exhibits a typical mixture of species (or mixture of traits) that it tends to return to after perturbations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, T. A., Purves, D. W. & Pacala, S. W. (2007a) Understanding height-structured competition in forests: is there an R for light?Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 274, 3039–3048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, T. A., Purves, D. W. & Pacala, S. W. (2007b) Understanding height-structured competition in forests: is there an R for light? (erratum)Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 275, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, F. R. & Mosquera, J. M. (2000) Is space necessary? Interference competition and limits to biodiversity. Ecology, 81, 3226–3232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J. & Levine, J. M. (2007) A niche for neutrality. Ecology Letters, 10, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botkin, D. B., Wallis, J. R. & Janak, J. F. (1972) Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. Journal of Ecology, 60, 849–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugmann, H. (2001) A review of forest gap models. Climatic Change, 51, 259–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, R. M. & Honkala, B. H. (1990a) Silvics of North America: Conifers. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
Burns, R. M. & Honkala, B. H. (1990b) Silvics of North America: Hardwoods. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
Cáceres, C. (1997) Temporal variation, dormancy, and coexistence: a field test of the storage effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 94, 9171–9175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canham, C. D. (1994) Causes and consequences of resource heterogeneity in forests: interspecific variation in light transmission by canopy trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 24, 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chave, J. (2004) Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecology Letters, 7, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, P. (2000a) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, P. (2000b) General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. Theoretical Population Biology, 58, 211–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J. S., Dietz, M., Chakraborty, S. et al. (2007) Resolving the biodiversity paradox. Ecology Letters, 10, 647–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J. S., LaDeau, S. & Ibanez, I. (2004) Fecundity of trees and the colonization-competition hypothesis. Ecological Monographs, 74, 415–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, K. D., Canham, C. D., Beaudet, M., Sachs, D. L. & Messier, C. (2003) Use of a spatially explicit individual-tree model (SORTIE/BC) to explore the implications of patchiness in structurally complex forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 186, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comita, L. S., Muller-Landau, H. C., Aguilar, S. & Hubbell, S. P. (2010) Asymmetric density dependence shapes species abundances in a tropical tree community. Science, 329, 330–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, J. H. (1971) On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine animals and in rain forest trees. In Dynamics of Populations (eds. den Boer, B. J. & Gradwell, G. R.), pp. 298–310. Wageningen: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.Google Scholar
Coomes, D. A. & Grubb, P. J. (2003) Colonization, tolerance, competition and seed-size variation within functional groups. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowles, H. C. (1899) The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Part I: Geographical relations of the dune floras. Botanical Gazette, 27, 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Lucca, C. M. (1998) TASS/SYLVER/TIPSY: systems for predicting the impact of silvicultural practices on yield, lumber value, economic return and other benefits. In Stand Density Management Conference: Using the Planning Tools (ed. Bamsey, C. R.), pp. 7–16. Edmonton: Clear Lake Ltd.Google Scholar
Dislich, C., Johst, K. & Huth, A. (2010) What enables coexistence in plant communities? Weak versus strong species traits and the role of local processes. Ecological Modelling, 221, 2227–2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, G. E. (2002) Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Report. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center.Google Scholar
Du, X., Zhou, S. & Etienne, R. S. (2011) Negative density dependence can offset the effect of species competitive asymmetry: a niche-based mechanism for neutral-like patterns. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 278, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dybzinski, R. & Tilman, D. (2009) Competition and coexistence in plant communities. In The Princeton Guide to Ecology (ed. Levin, S.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. & Lewis, O. T. (2006) Pathogens, density dependence and the coexistence of tropical trees. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 273, 2909–2916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gause, G. F. (1934) The Struggle for Existence. Baltimore: William and Wilkins.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gause, G. F. & Witt, A. A. (1935) Behavior of mixed populations and the problem of natural selection. American Naturalist, 69, 596–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, P. J. (1977) The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biological Reviews, 52, 107–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harms, K. E., Wright, S. J., Calderon, O., Hernandez, A. & Herre, E. A. (2000) Pervasive density-dependent recruitment enhances seedling diversity in a tropical forest. Nature, 404, 493–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. (2001) The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. (1961) The paradox of the plankton. American Naturalist, 882, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, A. & Ditzer, T. (2000) Simulation of the growth of a Dipterocarp lowland rain forest with FORMIX3. Ecological Modelling, 134, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, P. & Huth, A. (1998) The effect of tree species grouping in tropical rain forest modelling – Simulation with the individual based model FORMIND. Ecological Modelling, 109, 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohyama, T. (1993) Size-structured tree populations in gap-dynamic forest – the forest architecture hypothesis for the stable coexistence of species. Journal of Ecology, 81, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohyama, T. & Takada, T. (2009) The stratification theory for plant coexistence promoted by one-sided competition. Journal of Ecology, 97, 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körner, C. (2004) Through enhanced tree dynamics carbon dioxide enrichment may cause tropical forests to lose carbon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B, 359, 493–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janzen, D. H. (1970) Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. American Naturalist, 104, 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. J., Beaulieu, W. T., Bever, J. D. & Clay, K. (2012) Conspecific negative density dependence and forest diversity. Science, 336, 904–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leibold, M. A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N. et al. (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters, 7, 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibold, M. A. & McPeek, M. A. (2006) Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology. Ecology, 87, 1399–1410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, J. M. & HilleRisLambers, J. (2009) The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity. Nature, 461, 254–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lichstein, J. W., Dushoff, J., Levin, S. A. & Pacala, S. W. (2007) Intraspecific variation and species coexistence. American Naturalist, 170, 807–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lichstein, J. W. & Pacala, S. W. (2011) Local diversity in heterogeneous landscapes: quantitative assessment with a height-structured forest metacommunity model. Theoretical Ecology, 4, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. (1970) Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theoretical Population Biology, 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangan, S. A., Schnitzer, S. A., Herre, E. A. et al. (2010) Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest. Nature, 466, 752–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller-Landau, H. C. & Adler, F. R. (2007) How seed dispersal affects interactions with specialized natural enemies and their contribution to diversity maintenance. In Seed Dispersal: Theory and its Application in a Changing World (eds. Dennis, A. J., Schupp, E. W., Green, R. J. & Westcott, D. W.) pp. 407–426. Wallingford: CAB International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murrell, D. J. & Law, R. (2002) Heteromyopia and the spatial coexistence of similar competitors. Ecology Letters, 6, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoya, D., Zavala, M. A., Rodríguez, M. A. & Purves, D. W. (2008) Animal versus wind dispersal and the robustness of tree species to deforestation. Science, 320, 1502–1504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyland, R. D. (2007) Silviculture: Concepts and Applications. Boston: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Ogle, K. & Pacala, S. W. (2009) A modeling framework for inferring tree growth and allocation from physiological, morphological, and allometric traits. Tree Physiology, 29, 587–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, C. D. & Larson, B. C. (1996) Forest Stand Dynamics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pacala, S. W., Canham, C. D., Saponara, J., Silander, J. A. & Kobe, R. K. (1996) Forest models defined by field measurements: estimation, error analysis and dynamics. Ecological Monographs, 66, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacala, S. W. & Rees, M. (1998) Models suggesting field experiments to test two hypotheses explaining successional diversity. American Naturalist, 152, 729–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pake, C. & Venable, D. L. (1995) Is coexistence of Sonoran desert annual plants mediated by temporal variability reproductive success. Ecology, 76, 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puettman, K. J., Coates, D. & Messier, C. C. (2008) A Critique of Silviculture. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
Purves, D. W. & Dushoff, J. (2005) Directed seed dispersal and metapopulation response to habitat loss and disturbance: application to Eichhornia paniculata. Journal of Ecology, 93, 658–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purves, D. W., Lichstein, J. W., Strigul, N. & Pacala, S. W. (2008) Predicting and understanding forest dynamics using a simple tractable model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 105, 17018–17022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purves, D. W. & Pacala, S. W. (2008) Predictive models of forest dynamics. Science, 320, 1452–1453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purves, D. W. & Turnbull, L. A. (2010) Different but equal: the implausible assumption at the heart of neutral theory. Journal of Animal Ecology, 79, 1215–1225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shugart, H. H. (1984) A Theory of Forest Dynamics: The Ecological Implications of Forest Succession Models. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stage, A. R. (1973) Prognosis Model for Stand Development. Research Paper INT-137. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Sterck, F. J., Poorter, L. & Schieving, F. (2006) Leaf traits determine the growth-survival trade-off across rain forest tree species. The American Naturalist, 167, 758–765.Google ScholarPubMed
Strigul, N., Pristinski, D., Purves, D. W., Dushoff, J. & Pacala, S. W. (2007) Scaling from trees to forests: tractable macroscopic equations for forest dynamics. Ecological Monographs, 78, 523–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. (1982) Resource Competition and Community Structure. Monographs in Population Biology Vol. 17. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology, 75, 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, C. O. & Peart, D. R. (1999) Seedling density dependence promotes coexistence of Bornean rain forest trees. Ecology, 80, 2006–2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. (1956) Vegetation of the great smoky mountains. Ecological Monographs, 26, 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. (1960) Vegetation of siskiyou mountains, Oregon and Washington. Ecological Monographs, 30, 279–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. J. (2002) Plant diversity in tropical forests: a review of mechanisms of species coexistence. Oecologia, 130, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×