Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory

Letten, Andrew D., Ke, Po‐Ju, Fukami, Tadashi·2017·Ecological Monographs
DOI 10.1002/ecm.1242
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory represent parallel frameworks for understanding the niche's role in species coexistence. Despite increasing prominence and shared goals, their compatibility and complementarity have received little attention. This paucity of overlap not only presents an obstacle to newcomers to the field, but it also precludes further conceptual advances at their interface. Here, we present a synthetic treatment of the two frameworks. We review their main concepts and explore their theoretical and empirical relationship, focusing on how the resource supply ratio, impact niche, and requirement niche of contemporary niche theory translate into the stabilizing and equalizing processes of modern coexistence theory. We show, for a general consumer–resource model, that varying resource supply ratios reflects an equalizing process; varying impact niche overlap reflects a stabilizing process; and varying requirement niche overlap may be both stabilizing and equalizing, but has no qualitative effect on coexistence. These generalizations provide mechanistic insight into modern coexistence theory, while also clarifying the role of contemporary niche theory's impacts and requirements in mediating coexistence. From an empirical perspective, we recommend a hierarchical approach, in which quantification of the strength of stabilizing mechanisms is used to guide more focused investigation into the underlying niche factors determining species coexistence. Future research that considers alternative assumptions, including different forms of species interaction, spatiotemporal heterogeneity, and priority effects, would facilitate a more complete synthesis of the two frameworks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ecm.1242

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Chesson P., 2008, Unity in diversity: reflections on ecology after the legacy of Ramon Margalef, 119
  2. Elton C., 1927, Animal ecology
  3. 10.1086/683676 · doi:10.1086/683676
  4. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01863.x · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01863.x

Cited by

See all 363

Metadata

Authors
Letten, A. D., Ke, P., & Fukami, T.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-16
Volume
87
Issue
2
Pages
161-177
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
DOI
10.1002/ecm.1242
OpenAlex
W2556642682
Cited by
363
References
65
FWCI
23.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Funders
National Science Foundation (DEB 1149600)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.