The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats
Abstract
All organisms, especially terrestrial plants and other sessile species, interact mainly with their neighbors, but neighborhoods can differ in composition because of dispersal and mortality. There is increasingly strong evidence that the spatial structure created by these forces profoundly influences the dynamics, composition, and biodiversity of communities. Nonspatial models predict that no more consumer species can coexist at equilibrium than there are limiting resources. In contrast, a similar model that includes neighborhood competition and random dispersal among sites predicts stable coexistence of a potentially unlimited number of species on a single resource. Coexistence occurs because species with sufficiently high dispersal rates persist in sites not occupied by superior competitors. Coexistence requires limiting similarity and two—way or three—way interspecific trade—offs among competitive ability, colonization ability, and longevity. This spatial competition hypothesis seems to explain the coexistence of the numerous plant species that compete for a single limiting resource in the grasslands of Cedar Creek Natural History Area. It provides a testable, alternative explanation for other high diversity communities, such as tropical forests. The model can be tested (1) by determining if coexisting species have the requisite trade—offs in colonization, competition, and longevity, (2) by addition of propagules of propagules to determine if local species abundances are limited by dispersal, and (3) by comparisons of the effects on biodiversity of high rates of propagule addition for species that differ in competitive ability.
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
A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity
Huston, M. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283366 · Cited by 3,390
Cited by
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
Habitat destruction and the extinction debt
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L., & Nowak, M. A. (1994) · Nature · doi:10.1038/371065a0 · Cited by 2,844
Self-citationEffects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity
Olff, H., & Ritchie, M. E. (1998) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01364-0 · Cited by 1,528
Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory
HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P. B., Harpole, W. S., Levine, J. M., & Mayfield, M. M. (2012) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160411 · Cited by 1,448
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297
“…or NicholsonBailey predator-prey equations (Hastings, 1997); classical metapopulation models for single (Hanski, 1999) and multiple (Levins and Culver, 1971; Tilman, 1994) species; simple food web models (May, 1973; Cohen et al., 1990); and theoretical ecosystem models (Ågren and Bosatta, 1996).”
BackgroundMethodDomingo, E., Sheldon, J., & Perales, C. (2012) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.05023-11 · Cited by 1,009
Connecting landscape patterns to ecosystem and population processes
Kareiva, P., & Wennergren, U. (1995) · Nature · doi:10.1038/373299a0 · Cited by 581
Evolutionary dynamics on any population structure
Allen, B., Lippner, G., Chen, Y.-T., Fotouhi, B., Momeni, N., Yau, S.-T., & Nowak, M. A. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21723 · Cited by 534
Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities.
Stoll, P., & Prati, D. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0319:iaacii]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 369
Tuanmu, M., & Jetz, W. (2015) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12365 · Cited by 331
A new sampling formula for neutral biodiversity
Etienne, R. S. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00717.x · Cited by 263
Macroecology of a host‐parasite relationship
Vaughn, C. C., & Taylor, C. M. (2000) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2000.tb00256.x · Cited by 171
Buckley, Y. M., & Catford, J. (2016) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12501 · Cited by 163
Spatial habitat heterogeneity influences competition and coexistence in an African acacia ant guild.
Palmer, T. M. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/02-0528 · Cited by 147
Biotic Interactions Shape the Ecological Distributions of Staphylococcus Species
Kastman, E. K., Kamelamela, N., Norville, J. W., Cosetta, C. M., Dutton, R. J., & Wolfe, B. E. (2016) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.01157-16 · Cited by 127
Gonzalez, A., Mouquet, N., & Loreau, M. (2009) · Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547951.003.0010 · Cited by 92
Scavenger community response to the removal of a dominant scavenger
Olson, Z. H., Beasley, J. C., DeVault, T. L., & Rhodes, O. E. (2012) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19771.x · Cited by 88
Disentangling the effects of compositional and structural diversity on forest productivity
Silva Pedro, M., Rammer, W., & Seidl, R. (2017) · Journal of Vegetation Science · doi:10.1111/jvs.12505 · Cited by 86
THE EFFECT OF BIODIVERSITY ON THE HANTAVIRUS EPIZOOTIC
Peixoto, I. D., & Abramson, G. (2006) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[873:teobot]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 57
Teurlincx, S., Verhofstad, M. J. J. M., Bakker, E. S., & Declerck, S. A. J. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01013 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Tilman, D.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-16
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2159641034
- Cited by
- 2,780
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 58.04
- 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
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.
