Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 593–604 | Cite as

Habitat structure mediates spatial segregation and therefore coexistence

  • Jeroen Boeye
  • Alexander Kubisch
  • Dries Bonte
Research Article

Abstract

Understanding the mechanisms driving diversity in nature is an important and ongoing challenge in our changing world. To efficiently protect ecosystem diversity it is crucial to explain why and how species coexist. Over the last decades models explaining species coexistence have increased in complexity but usually don’t incorporate a detailed spatial context. However, spatial structure has been shown to affect species coexistence and habitat deterioration is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity. We therefore explore a spatially explicit two-species model and assess the effects of habitat structure on species coexistence using a wide diversity of fractal landscapes. Each species is specialized in a particular habitat type. We find that landscape structure has a major influence on the stability and constitution of a two species system and may be sufficient to explain the coexistence of two species. Well connected and highly structured habitat configurations allow spatial segregation of both species and this decreases local interspecific competition; in our model this is the most important process stabilizing coexistence.

Keywords

Coexistence Competition Habitat structure Habitat fragmentation Habitat loss Spatial segregation Storage effect Dispersal  

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by FWO project G.0610.11 to DB and JB. DB is supported by the FWO Research Network EVENET and the BelSpo IAP project Speedy. AK is supported by a grant from the German science foundation (HO 2051/3-1). This is publication ISEM-2014-032 of the Institute des Sciences de l’Evolution.

Supplementary material

10980_2014_10_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)
10980_2014_10_MOESM2_ESM.tif (8.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 8368 kb)
10980_2014_10_MOESM3_ESM.doc (64 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 63 kb)
10980_2014_10_MOESM4_ESM.gif (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (GIF 2148 kb)

References

  1. Driscoll D a, Banks SC, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB, Smith AL (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 28:605–613Google Scholar
  2. Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122Google Scholar
  3. Boeye J, Travis JMJ, Stoks R, Bonte D (2013) More rapid climate change promotes evolutionary rescue through selection for increased dispersal distance. Evol Appl 6:353–364Google Scholar
  4. Bonin MC, Almany GR, Jones GP (2011) Contrasting effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on coral-associated reef fishes. Ecology 92:1503–1512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonte D, Hovestadt T, Poethke H-J (2010) Evolution of dispersal polymorphism and local adaptation of dispersal distance in spatially structured landscapes. Oikos 119:560–566Google Scholar
  6. Bowers MA, Dooley JL (1991) Landscape composition and the intensity and outcome of two-species competition. Oikos 60:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366Google Scholar
  8. Chesson P, Neuhauser C (2002) Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence—comment from Chesson and Neuhauser. Trends Ecol Evol 17:529–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Débarre F, Lenormand T (2011) Distance-limited dispersal promotes coexistence at habitat boundaries: reconsidering the competitive exclusion principle. Ecol Lett 14:260–266Google Scholar
  10. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142Google Scholar
  11. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515Google Scholar
  12. Gravel D, Guichard F, Hochberg ME (2011) Species coexistence in a variable world. Ecol Lett 14:828–839Google Scholar
  13. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen JU, Jorgensen C, Mooij WM, Müller B, Pe'er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins AM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabo R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Modell 198:115–126Google Scholar
  14. Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Modell 221:2760–2768Google Scholar
  15. Hanski I (1995) Effect of landscape pattern on competitive interactions. In: Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (eds) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanski I (2007) Spatial patterns of coexistence of competing species in patchy habitat. Theor Ecol 1:29–43Google Scholar
  17. Hassell MP, Comins HN (1976) Discrete time models for two-species competition. Theor Popul Biol 9:202–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (2005) Metacommunities spatial dynamics and ecological communities. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeltsch F, Bonte D, Pe’er G, Reineking B, Leimgruber P, Balkenhol N, Schröder B, Buchmann CM, Mueller T, Blaum N, Zurell D, Böhning-Gaese K, Wiegand T, Eccard JA, Hofer H, Reeg J, Eggers U, Bauer S (2013) Integrating movement ecology with biodiversity research—exploring new avenues to address spatiotemporal biodiversity dynamics. Mov Ecol 1:6Google Scholar
  20. Kubisch A, Poethke H-J, Hovestadt T (2011) Density-dependent dispersal and the formation of range borders. Ecography (Cop) 34:1002–1008Google Scholar
  21. Levin SA (1974) Dispersion and population interactions. Am Nat 108:207–228Google Scholar
  22. Lotka AJ (1932) The growth of mixed populations: two species competing for a common food supply. J Washington Acad Sci 22:461–469Google Scholar
  23. McInerny G, Travis JMJ, Dytham C (2007) Range shifting on a fragmented landscape. Ecol Inform 2:1–8Google Scholar
  24. Miller GSP (1986) The definition and rendering of terrain maps. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 20:39–48Google Scholar
  25. Murrell DJ, Purves DW, Law R (2001) Uniting pattern and process in plant ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 16:529–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murrell D, Purves D, Law R (2002) Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence—response from Murrell, Purves and Law. Trends Ecol Evol 17:211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neuhauser C, Pacala SW (1999) An explicitly spatial version of the Lotka-Volterra model with interspecific competition. Ann Appl Probab 9:1226–1259Google Scholar
  28. Nicholson AJ (1933) The balance of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 2:132–178Google Scholar
  29. Pacala SW, Tilman D (1994) Limiting similarity in mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in heterogeneous environments. Am Nat 143:222–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rejmanek M (2002) Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence. Trends Ecol Evol 17:209–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Remer LC, Heard SB (1998) Local movement and edge effects on competition and coexistence in ephemeral-patch models. Am Nat 152:896–904Google Scholar
  32. Snyder RE (2008) When does environmental variation most influence species coexistence? Theor Ecol 1:129–139Google Scholar
  33. Snyder RE, Chesson P (2003) Local dispersal can facilitate coexistence in the presence of permanent spatial heterogeneity. Ecol Lett 6:301–309Google Scholar
  34. Snyder RE, Chesson P (2004) How the spatial scales of dispersal, competition, and environmental heterogeneity interact to affect coexistence. Am Nat 164:633–650Google Scholar
  35. Travis JMJ, Dytham C (2002) Dispersal evolution during invasions. Evol Ecol 4:1119–1129Google Scholar
  36. Volterra V (1926) Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi. Mem R Accad Naz dei Lincei 6:31–113Google Scholar
  37. Wassmuth BE, Stoll P, Tscharntke T, Thies C (2009) Spatial aggregation facilitates coexistence and diversity of wild plant species in field margins. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 11:127–135Google Scholar
  38. Wiegand T, Moloney KA, Naves J, Knauer F (1999) Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective. Am Nat 154:605–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yaacobi G, Ziv Y, Rosenzweig ML (2007) Habitat fragmentation may not matter to species diversity. Proc R Soc B 274:2409–2412Google Scholar
  40. Zhang F, Li Z, Hui C (2006) Spatiotemporal dynamics and distribution patterns of cyclic competition in metapopulation. Ecol Modell 193:721–735Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Terrestrial Ecology UnitGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Institute des Sciences de l’Evolution (UMR 5554)Université Montpellier II, CNRSMontpellier Cedex 5France
  3. 3.Field Station FabrikschleichachUniversity of WuerzburgRauhenebrachGermany

Personalised recommendations