Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 207–223 | Cite as

Broadly inflicted stressors can cause ecosystem thinning

  • Matthew G. BurgessEmail author
  • Alexa Fredston-Hermann
  • David Tilman
  • Michel Loreau
  • Steven D. Gaines
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Many anthropogenic stressors broadly inflict mortality or reduce fecundity, including habitat destruction, pollution, climate change, invasive species, and multispecies harvesting. Here, we show—in four analytical models of interspecies competition—that broadly inflicted stressors disproportionately cause competitive exclusions within groups of ecologically similar species. As a result, we predict that ecosystems become progressively thinner—that is, they have progressively less functional redundancy—as broadly inflicted stressors become progressively more intense. This may negatively affect the temporal stability of ecosystem functions, but it also buffers ecosystem productivity against stress by favoring species less sensitive to the stressors. Our main result follows from the weak limiting similarity principle: species with more similar ecological niches compete more strongly, and their coexistence can be upset by smaller perturbations. We show that stressors can cause indirect competitive exclusions at much lower stressor intensity than needed to directly cause species extinction, consistent with the finding of empirical studies that species interactions are often the proximal drivers of local extinctions. The excluded species are more sensitive to the stressor relative to their ecologically similar competitors. Moreover, broadly inflicted stressors may cause hydra effects—where higher stressor intensity results in higher abundance for a species with lower sensitivity to the stressor than its competitors. Correlations between stressor impacts and ecological niches reduce the potential for indirect competitive exclusions, but they consequently also reduce the buffering effect of ecosystem thinning on ecosystem productivity. Our findings suggest that ecosystems experiencing stress may continue to provision ecosystem services but lose functional redundancy and stability.

Keywords

Limiting similarity Competition Stability Ecosystem function Ecosystem services Biodiversity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Géza Meszéna and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on a previous draft and Stephen Pacala for a useful discussion.

Funding information

The study received funding from the Waitt Foundation and the University of Colorado Boulder. ML was supported by the TULIP Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-41) and by the BIOSTASES Advanced Grant and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 666971).

References

  1. Aalto EA, Baskett ML (2013) Quantifying the balance between bycatch and predator or competitor release for nontarget species. Ecol Appl 23(5):972–983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 14(1):359–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrams PA (2009) When does greater mortality increase population size? The long history and diverse mechanisms underlying the hydra effect. Ecol Lett 12(5):462–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson CN, Hsieh CH, Sandin SA et al (2008) Why fishing magnifies fluctuations in fish abundance. Nature 452(7189):835–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong RA, McGehee R (1980) Competitive exclusion. Am Nat 115(2):151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabás G, Pásztor L, Meszéna G, Ostling A (2014) Sensitivity analysis of coexistence in ecological communities: theory and application. Ecol Lett 17(12):1479–1494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgess MG, Polasky S, Tilman D (2013) Predicting overfishing and extinction threats in multispecies fisheries. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(40):15943–15948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess MG, Giacomini HC, Szuwalski CS, Costello C, Gaines SD (2017) Describing ecosystem contexts with single-species models: a theoretical synthesis for fisheries. Fish Fish 18(2):264–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cahill AE, Aiello-Lammens ME, Fisher-Reid MC, et al. (2012) How does climate change cause extinction? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, rspb20121890Google Scholar
  10. Calcagno V, Mouquet N, Jarne P, David P (2006) Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition–colonization trade-off is not dead. Ecol Lett 9(8):897–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavender-Bares J, Kozak KH, Fine PV, Kembel SW (2009) The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol Lett 12(7):693–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31(1):343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesson PL, Warner RR (1981) Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. Am Nat 117(6):923–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chisholm RA, Pacala SW (2010) Niche and neutral models predict asymptotically equivalent species abundance distributions in high-diversity ecological communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(36):15821–15825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark CW (1976) Mathematical bioeconomics: the optimal management of renewable resources. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species. Routledge, AbingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grover JP (1997) Resource competition. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardin G (1960) The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131(3409):1292–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Harpole WS, Tilman D (2007) Grassland species loss resulting from reduced niche dimension. Nature 446(7137):791–793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hastings A (1980) Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space. Theor Popul Biol 18(3):363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hastings A (1997) Population biology: concepts and models. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hastings A, Costantino RF (1987) Cannibalistic egg-larva interactions in Tribolium: an explanation for the oscillations in population numbers. Am Nat 130(1):36–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12(2):197–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Holt RD, Grover J, Tilman D (1994) Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. Am Nat 144(5):741–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ et al (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75(1):3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals? Am Nat 93(1):45–59Google Scholar
  28. Huxel G, Hastings A (1998) Population size dependence, competitive coexistence and habitat destruction. J Anim Ecol 67(3):446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell S, Lange CB, Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM, Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ, Warner RR (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293(5530):629–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kinzig AP, Levin SA, Dushoff J, Pacala S (1999) Limiting similarity, species packing, and system stability for hierarchical competition-colonization models. Am Nat 153(4):371–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehman CL, Tilman D (2000) Biodiversity, stability, and productivity in competitive communities. Am Nat 156(5):534–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Letten AD, Ke PJ, Fukami T (2017) Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecol Monogr 87(2):161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Ent Soc Am 15(3):237–240Google Scholar
  34. Loreau M (1989) Coexistence of temporally segregated competitors in a cyclic environment. Theor Popul Biol 36(2):181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loreau M (1992) Time scale of resource dynamics and coexistence through time partitioning. Theor Popul Biol 41(3):401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loreau M, de Mazancourt C (2013) Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecol Lett 16:106–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412(6842):72–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. MacArthur R, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101(921):377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JE (2016) Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536(7615):143–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Melbourne BA, Hastings A (2009) Highly variable spread rates in replicated biological invasions: fundamental limits to predictability. Science 325(5947):1536–1539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Meszéna G, Gyllenberg M, Pásztor L, Metz JA (2006) Competitive exclusion and limiting similarity: a unified theory. Theor Popul Biol 69(1):68–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nee S, May RM (1992) Dynamics of metapopulations: habitat destruction and competitive coexistence. J Anim Ecol 61:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ockendon N, Baker DJ, Carr JA, White EC, Almond REA, Amano T, Bertram E, Bradbury RB, Bradley C, Butchart SHM, Doswald N, Foden W, Gill DJC, Green RE, Sutherland WJ, Tanner EVJ, Pearce-Higgins JW (2014) Mechanisms underpinning climatic impacts on natural populations: altered species interactions are more important than direct effects. Glob Chang Biol 20(7):2221–2229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pásztor L, Botta-Dukát Z, Magyar G, Czárán T, Meszéna G (2016) Theory-based ecology: a Darwinian approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD, Blanchard J, Bonebrake TC, Chen IC, Clark TD, Colwell RK, Danielsen F, Evengård B, Falconi L, Ferrier S, Frusher S, Garcia RA, Griffis RB, Hobday AJ, Janion-Scheepers C, Jarzyna MA, Jennings S, Lenoir J, Linnetved HI, Martin VY, McCormack PC, McDonald J, Mitchell NJ, Mustonen T, Pandolfi JM, Pettorelli N, Popova E, Robinson SA, Scheffers BR, Shaw JD, Sorte CJB, Strugnell JM, Sunday JM, Tuanmu MN, Vergés A, Villanueva C, Wernberg T, Wapstra E, Williams SE (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355(6332):eaai9214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pianka ER (1974) Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proc Natl Acad Sci 71(5):2141–2145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Price GR (1970) Selection and covariance. Nature 227:520–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Schindler DW (2006) Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnol Oceanogr 51(1part2):356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwartz MW, Brigham CA, Hoeksema JD, Lyons KG, Mills MH, van Mantgem PJ (2000) Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia 122(3):297–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Socher SA, Prati D, Boch S, Müller J, Klaus VH, Hölzel N, Fischer M (2012) Direct and productivity-mediated indirect effects of fertilization, mowing and grazing on grassland species richness. J Ecol 100(6):1391–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stubbs WJ, Wilson JB (2004) Evidence for limiting similarity in a sand dune community. J Ecol 92(4):557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Szuwalski CS, Burgess MG, Costello C, Gaines SD (2017) High fishery catches through trophic cascades in China. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(4):717–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Tilman D (1980) Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am Nat 116(3):362–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75(1):2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tilman D (2011) Diversification, biotic interchange, and the universal trade-off hypothesis. Am Nat 178(3):355–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371(6492):65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Titman D (1976) Ecological competition between algae: experimental confirmation of resource-based competition theory. Science 192(4238):463–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Urban MC, Bocedi G, Hendry AP et al (2016) Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change. Science 353(6304):aad8466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Vandermeer JH (1975) Interspecific competition: a new approach to the classical theory. Science 188:253–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Violle C, Nemergut DR, Pu Z, Jiang L (2011) Phylogenetic limiting similarity and competitive exclusion. Ecol Lett 14(8):782–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Walther GR, Post E, Convey P, Menzel A, Parmesan C, Beebee TJC, Fromentin JM, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bairlein F (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416(6879):389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental SciencesUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Studies ProgramUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology, Evolution and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  5. 5.Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modelling, Theoretical and Experimental Ecology StationCNRSMoulisFrance
  6. 6.Marine Science InstituteUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations