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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography
Jetschke, G. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1771:tuntob]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 6,993
Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity
Chesson, P. (2000) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343 · Cited by 6,645
Self-citationEvolutionary Games and Population Dynamics
Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173179 · Cited by 5,502
Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity
Paine, R. T. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282400 · Cited by 5,361 · cited 1×
“Ever since Paine (1966), Janzen (1970) and Connell (1970), it has been understood that natural enemies can have profound effects on the outcomes of interactions between species in the same guild.”
BackgroundHerbivores and the Number of Tree Species in Tropical Forests
Janzen, D. H. (1970) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282687 · Cited by 4,774
THE MAINTENANCE OF SPECIES‐RICHNESS IN PLANT COMMUNITIES: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REGENERATION NICHE
GRUBB, P. J. (1977) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1977.tb01347.x · Cited by 4,402
Resource Competition and Community Structure.
Harper, J. L., & Tilman, D. (1983) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2259756 · Cited by 4,180
Homage to Santa Rosalia or Why Are There So Many Kinds of Animals?
Hutchinson, G. E. (1959) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282070 · Cited by 4,138
Hardin, G. (1960) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.131.3409.1292 · Cited by 3,426
Hutchinson, G. E. (1961) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282171 · Cited by 3,074
Cited by
How mycorrhizal associations drive plant population and community biology
Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M., & Zobel, M. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aba1223 · Cited by 1,045
Permanence via invasion graphs: incorporating community assembly into modern coexistence theory
Hofbauer, J., & Schreiber, S. J. (2022) · Journal of Mathematical Biology · doi:10.1007/s00285-022-01815-2 · Cited by 35
Nutrient retention by predators undermines predator coexistence on one prey
Klauschies, T., & Gaedke, U. (2020) · Theoretical Ecology · doi:10.1007/s12080-019-00440-y · Cited by 16
Cooperation Maximizes Biodiversity
Godoy, O., Calleja-Solanas, V., Soler-Toscano, F., Portillo, J. R., Suárez, A., & Langa, J. A. (2026) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/741536 · Cited by 2
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.