The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Large niche differences emerge at the recruitment stage to stabilize grassland coexistence
Abstract
Niche differences and average fitness differences jointly determine coexistence. However, little empirical information about the magnitude of these two mechanisms is available. Using multispecies population models fit to long‐term demographic data for common, co‐occurring species in five grassland and shrubland plant communities in western North America, we estimated the strength of stabilizing niche differences and average fitness differences. In all five communities, both pairwise and full community comparisons showed evidence for strong stabilizing mechanisms and relatively small average fitness differences. For a total of 17 species pairs, a measure of niche differences based on simulations of invasion growth rates ranged from 0.59 to 0.93 with a mean of 0.81, where 0 indicates complete niche overlap and 1 indicates zero niche overlap. A corresponding measure of average fitness differences ranged from 1.02 to 2.54 with a mean of 1.53, where 1 indicates identical fitness and a value of 2 indicates a fourfold difference in sensitivity to competition. Comparisons of full communities displayed similar patterns: niche differences ranged from 0.58 to 0.69 with a mean of 0.64, and the average fitness differences ranged from 1.42 to 1.63 with a mean of 1.47. In almost every case, the stabilizing mechanisms were much stronger than minimally necessary to prevent competitive exclusion. Considering that all but one of the species we studied are perennial grasses, which are often grouped in the same functional type, the magnitude of these niche differences is surprising. In all five communities, differences between intra‐ and interspecific effects at the recruitment stage contributed far more to stabilization than interactions affecting growth and survival. Our results indicate that for these abundant, co‐occurring species (1) dynamics are far from neutral, with strong niche differences and weak fitness differences combining to stabilize coexistence, and (2) processes operating at early life stages account for a large proportion of the stabilizing effect. Given the limitations of our inductive approach, both these findings represent hypotheses in need of experimental testing.
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
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
Ripley, B. D. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01615.x · Cited by 2,511
Cited by
A structural approach for understanding multispecies coexistence
Saavedra, S., Rohr, R. P., Bascompte, J., Godoy, O., Kraft, N. J. B., & Levine, J. M. (2017) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1263 · Cited by 282
Self-regulation and the stability of large ecological networks
Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M. J., & Allesina, S. (2017) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0357-6 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Chu, C., & Adler, P. B.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 373-392
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2147207180
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.16
- 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: Large niche differences emerge at the recruitment stage to stabilize grassland coexistence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/14-1741.1
- The paper
- Chu, C., & Adler, P. B. (2015). Large niche differences emerge at the recruitment stage to stabilize grassland coexistence. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1741.1
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.