Dispersal-mediated coexistence of indirect competitors in source-sink metacommunities



The source-sink dynamics is a major hypothesis to explain dispersal-mediated coexistence of locally exclusive competitors. We study Lotka-Volterra diffusive models of indirect competition in patchy metacommunities. In a model of exploitative competition, we numerically show that the effect of resource movement on the coexistence depends on demographic factors that create source-sink structures and that the dispersal rate of the superior competitor need not be higher than that of the inferior to promote dispersal-mediated coexistence. In a model of apparent competition, we analytically prove that dispersal can make coexistence possible even if any patches are sinks for the inferior resource species. The requirement for this coexistence is the lower dispersal rate of the inferior competitor. We conclude that dispersal among patches can be a mechanism to save inferior indirect competitors from regional extinction and that the level of spatial heterogeneity need not be so high to reverse the competitive rankings among patches.

Key words

exploitative competition apparent competition metacommunity source-sink dynamics dispersal-mediated coexistence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    P. Abrams and W.G. Wilson, Coexistence of competitors in metacommunities due to spatial variation in resource growth rates; does R* predict the outcome of competition? Ecol. Lett.,7, (2004) 929–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    F.R. Adler and J. Mosquera, Is space necessary? Interference competition and limits to biodiversity, Ecology,81, (2000) 3226–3232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Amarasekare, Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol. Lett.,6, (2003) 1109–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Amarasekare, M.F. Hoopes, N. Mouquet and M. Holyoak, Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive metacommunities. Am. Nat.,164, (2004) 310–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Amarasekare and R.M. Nisbet, Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics, and the local coexistence of competing species. Am. Nat.,158, (2001) 572–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    R.A. Armstrong and R. McGehee, Competitive exclusion. Am. Nat.,115, (1980) 151–170.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    B.M. Bolker and S.W. Pacala, Spatial moment equations for plant communities: understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. Am. Nat.,153, (1999) 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.H. Brown and A. Kodric-Brown, Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology,58, (1977) 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    V. Calcagno, N. Mouquet, P. Jarne and P. David, Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition-colonization trade-off is not dead. Ecol. Lett.,9, (2006) 897–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    R.S. Cantrell and C. Cosner, On the effects of spatial heterogeneity on the persistence of interacting species. J. Math. Biol.,37, (1998) 103–145.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    J.M. Chase, P. Amarasekare, K. Cottenie, A. Gonzalez, R.D. Holt, M. Holyoak, M.F. Hoopes, M.A. Leibold, M. Loreau, N. Mouquet, J.B. Shurin and D. Tilman, Competing theories for competitive metacommunities. Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities, (M. Holyoak, M.A. Leibold and R.D. Holt eds.), Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2005, 335–354.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. Chesson, Coexistence of competitors in spatially and temporally varying environments: a look at the combined effects of different sorts of variability. Theor. Popul. Biol.,28, (1985) 263–287.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    P. Chesson, General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. Theor. Popul. Biol.,58, (2000) 211–237.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    P. Chesson, Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.,31, (2000) 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    U. Dieckmann, R. Law and J.A.J. Metz (eds.), The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    I.A. Hanski and M.E. Gilpin, Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol. J. Linn. Soc,42, (1991) 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    I.A. Hanski and M.E. Gilpin (eds.), Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, 1997MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Hastings, Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space. Theor. Popul. Biol.,18, (1980) 363–373.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    R.D. Holt, Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theor. Popul. Biol.,12, (1977) 197–229.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    R.D. Holt, Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and coexistence of prey species. Am. Nat.,124, (1984) 377–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    R.D. Holt, Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of optimal habitat selection. Theor. Popul. Biol.,28, (1985) 181–208.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    R.D. Holt, Ecology at the mesoscale: the influence of regional processes on local communities. Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives, (R.E. Ricklefs and D. Schulter eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993, 77–88.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    R.D. Holt, J. Grover and D. Tilman, Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. Am. Nat.,144, (1994) 741–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. Holyoak and S.P. Lawler, The role of dispersal in predator-prey metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol.,65, (1996) 640–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    M. Holyoak and S.P. Lawler, Persistence of an extinction-prone predator-prey interaction through metapopulation dynamics. Ecology,77, (1996) 1867–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    M. Holyoak, M.A. Leibold and R.D. Holt editors, Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2005.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    M. Holyoak, M.A. Leibold, N. Mouquet, R.D. Holt, M.F. Hoopes, Metacommunities. A framework for large-scale community ecology. Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities, (M. Holyoak, M.A. Leibold and R.D. Holt, eds.), Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2005, 35–67.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    M.F. Hoopes, R.D. Holt and M. Holyoak, The effects of spatial processes on two species interactions. Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities, (M. Holyoak, M.A. Leibold and R.D. Holt eds), Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2005, 35–67.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    H.S. Horn and R.H. MacArthur, Competition among fugitive species in a harlequin environment. Ecology,53, (1972) 749–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    S.B. Hsu, S.P. Hubbell and P. Waltman, Competing predators. SIAM J. Appl. Math.,35, (1978) 617–625.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    S.B. Hsu, S.P. Hubbell and P. Waltman, A contribution to the theory of competing predators. Ecol. Monog.,48, (1978) 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Y. Iwasa and J. Roughgarden, Interspecific competition among metapopulations with spacelimited subpopulations. Theor. Popul. Biol.,30, (1986) 194–214.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    K. Kishimoto, Coexistence of any number of species in the Lotka-Volterra competitive system over two patches. Theor. Popul. Biol.,38, (1990) 149–158.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    J.M. Kneitel and J.M. Chase, Trade-offs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence. Ecol. Lett.,7, (2004) 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    A.L. Koch, Competitive coexistence of two predators utilizing the same prey under constant environmental conditions. J. Theor. Biol.,44, (1974) 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    V.A. Kostitzin, Biologie Mathématique. Collection Armand Colin: Paris, Translated in English by T.H. Savory in 1939. Mathematical Biology. Harrap and Co., London, 1937.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    M.A. Leibold, M. Holyoak, N. Mouquet, P. Amarasekare, J.M. Chase, M.F. Hoopes, R.D. Holt, J.B. Shurin, R. Law, D. Tilman, M. Loreau and A. Gonzalez, The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett.,7, (2004) 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    J. Leon and D. Tumpson, Competition between two species for two complementary or substitutable resources. J. Theor. Biol.,50, (1975) 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    S.A. Levin, Dispersion and population interactions. Am. Nat.,108, (1974) 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    R. Levins, Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am.,15, (1969) 237–240.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    R. Levins, Extinction. Some Mathematical Problems in Biology, (M. Gerstenhaber, ed.), American Mathematical Society: Providence RI. 1970, 75–107.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    R. Levins and D. Culver, Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,68, (1971) 1246–1248.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    N. Mouquet, M.F. Hoopes and P. Amarasekare, The world is patchy and heterogeneous! Trade-off and source-sink dynamics in competitive metacommunities. Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities, (M. Holyoak, M.A. Leibold and R.D. Holt, eds.), Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2005, 237–262.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    N. Mouquet and M. Loreau, Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis. Am. Nat.,159, (2002) 420–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    N. Mouquet and M. Loreau, Community patterns in source-sink metacommunities. Am. Nat.,162, (2003) 544–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    N. Mouquet, T.E. Miller, T. Daufresne and J.M. Kneitel, Consequences of varying regional heterogeneity in source-sink metacommunities, Oikos,113, (2006) 481–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    S. Muko and Y. Iwasa, Species coexistence by permanent spatial heterogeneity in a lottery model. Theor. Popul. Biol.,57, (2000) 273–284.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    S. Muko and Y. Iwasa, Incomplete mixing promotes species coexistence in a lottery model with permanent spatial heterogeneity. Theor. Popul. Biol.,64, (2003) 359–368.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    D.J. Murrell and R. Law, Heteromyopia and the spatial coexistence of similar competitors. Ecol. Lett.,6, (2003) 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    T. Namba, Emigration of a population and stability of a prey-predator system. Bull. Assoc. Nat. Sci. Senshu Univ.,11, (1993) 9–20.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    T. Namba and C. Hashimoto, Dispersal-mediated coexistence of competing predators. Theor. Popul. Biol.,66, (2004) 53–70.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    T. Namba, A. Umemoto and E. Minami, The Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Persistence of Source-Sink Metapopulations in Systems with Predators and Prey or Apparent Competitors. Theor. Popul. Biol.,56, (1999) 123–137.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    A. Okubo and S.A. Levin, Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Modern Perspectives (Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics). Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    S.W. Pacala and M. Rees, Models suggesting field experiments to test two hypotheses explaining successional diversity. Am. Nat.,152, (1998) 729–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    S.W. Pacala, and J. Roughgarden. Spatial heterogeneity and interspecific competition. Theor. Popul. Biol.,21, (1982) 92–113.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    H.R. Pulliam, Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat.,132, (1988) 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    H.R. Pulliam and B.J. Danielson, Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am. Nat.,137, (1991) S50-S66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    A. Schneeberger and V.A.A. Jansen, The estimation of dispersal rates using the covariance of local populations. Ecol. Modell.,196, (2006) 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    N. Shigesada and K. Kawasaki, Biological Invasions: Theory and Practice (Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution). Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
  60. [60]
    A. Shmida and R.H. Whittaker, Pattern and biological microsite effects in two shrub communities, Southern California. Ecology,62, (1981) 234–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    R. Snyder and P. Chesson, Local dispersal can facilitate coexistence in the presence of permanent spatial heterogeneity. Ecol. Lett.,6, (2003) 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    F.M. Stewart and B.R. Levin, Partitioning of resources and the outcome of interspecific competition: a model and some general considerations. Am. Nat.,107, (1973) 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Y. Takeuchi, Diffusion-mediated persistence in two-species competition Lotka-Volterra model. Math. Biosci.,95, (1989) 65–83.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    D. Tilman, Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am. Nat.,116, (1980) 362–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    D. Tilman, Resource Competition and Community Structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    D. Tilman, Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology,75, (1994) 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    D. Tilman and P. Kareiva, eds., Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1997.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    D. Tilman, R.M. May, C.L. Lehman and M.A. Nowak, Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature,371, (1994) 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    A.R. Watkinson and W.J. Sutherland, Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. J. Anim. Ecol.,64, (1995) 126–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    D.S. Wilson, Complex interactions in metacommunities with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology,73, (1992) 1984–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. [71]
    D.W. Yu and H.B. Wilson, The competition-colonization trade-off is dead; long live the competition-colonization trade-off. Am. Nat.,158, (2001) 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© JJIAM Publishing Committee 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological Science, Graduate School of ScienceOsaka Prefecture UniversitySakaiJapan

Personalised recommendations