Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity

Chesson, Peter·2018·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

A quantitative approach to species coexistence based on the invasibility criterion has led to an appreciation of coexistence mechanisms in terms of stabilizing and equalizing components, but major challenges are the need to consider general multispecies settings, interactions beyond competition, and multiple scales of space and time. Moreover, two essential concepts, species‐level average fitness and scaling factors, have not had clear definitions. A general approach to defining average fitnesses and scaling factors is given, along with the origin of stabilizing mechanisms as deviations from a reference model where no coexistence is possible. Illustrations are general Lotka–Volterra models, models accounting specifically for resource use and natural enemies, and models with temporal fluctuations. Community averages of stabilizing mechanisms reveal overall opportunities for coexistence, and define mechanisms more precisely through their formulae. Average fitnesses adjusted for the presence of coexistence mechanisms provide a better definition of equalizing mechanisms. While these ideas apply to the components of invasion rates, permanence theory and stochastic persistence theory show how invasion rates can be used to demonstrate species coexistence in complex settings. Although species coexistence has often focused on competition, detailed models of the roles of natural enemies provide a new perspective on the opportunities for coexistence in nature. The concept of apparent competition recognizes the essential symmetry between density‐dependence from resource depletion and from supporting natural enemies. Natural enemy partitioning is the natural analogue of resource partitioning and has an equivalent role in promoting coexistence. Rather than reinforcing each other, however, the strength of coexistence is often intermediate between that implied by resource partitioning alone and that implied by natural enemy partitioning alone, as elucidated by recent Lotka–Volterra theory. Synthesis. Although there are alternative approaches for understanding coexistence in multispecies settings, ideas based on stabilizing and equalizing mechanisms continue to provide new insights. Multiple species and multiple trophic levels are naturally challenging, but the new theories of permanence and stochastic persistence support the critical role of invasion rates in species coexistence, and thus support the understanding to be derived by partitioning invasion rates into average fitness differences and stabilizing components.

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 · 10.1111/1365-2745.13035

Cites

89 of 89 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

Show all 89 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Chesson, P.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-13
Volume
106
Issue
5
Pages
1773-1794
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2885393394
Cited by
339
References
89
FWCI
28.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2745.13035
The paper
Chesson, P. (2018). Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13035

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.