How self-regulation, the storage effect, and their interaction contribute to coexistence in stochastic and seasonal environments

Abstract

Explaining coexistence in species-rich communities of primary producers remains a challenge for ecologists because of their likely competition for shared resources. Following Hutchinson’s seminal suggestion, many theoreticians have tried to create diversity through a fluctuating environment, which impairs or slows down competitive exclusion. However, fluctuating environment models often only produce a dozen of coexisting species at best. Here, we investigate how to create richer communities in fluctuating environments, using an empirically parameterized model. Building on the forced Lotka-Volterra model of Scranton and Vasseur (Theor Ecol 9(3):353–363, 2016), inspired by phytoplankton communities, we have investigated the effect of two coexistence mechanisms, namely the storage effect and higher intra- than interspecific competition strengths (i.e., strong self-regulation). We tuned the intra/inter-competition ratio based on empirical analyses, in which self-regulation dominates interspecific interactions. Although a strong self-regulation maintained more species (50%) than the storage effect (25%), we show that none of the two coexistence mechanisms considered could ensure the coexistence of all species alone. Realistic seasonal environments only aggravated that picture, as they decreased persistence relative to a random environment. However, strong self-regulation and the storage effect combined superadditively so that all species could persist with both mechanisms at work. Our results suggest that combining different coexistence mechanisms into community models might be more fruitful than trying to find which mechanism best explains diversity. We additionally highlight that while biomass-trait distributions provide some clues regarding coexistence mechanisms, they cannot indicate unequivocally which mechanisms are at play.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://github.com/CoraliePicoche/Seasonality

References

  1. Abrams PA (1976) Niche overlap and environmental variability. Math Biosci 28(3):357–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(76)90133-4

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adler PB, Ellner SP, Levine JM (2010) Coexistence of perennial plants: an embarrassment of niches. Ecol Lett 13(8):1019–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01496.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Adler PB, Smull D, Beard KH, Choi RT, Furniss T, Kulmatiski A, Meiners JM, Tredennick AT, Veblen KE (2018) Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. Ecol Lett 21(9):1319–1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13098

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Armstrong R, McGehee R (1980) Competitive exclusion. Am Nat 115 (2):151–170. https://doi.org/10.1086/283553

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ashby B, Watkins E, Lourenço J, Gupta S, Foster KR (2017) Competing species leave many potential niches unfilled. Nat Ecol Evol 1(10):1495–1501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0295-3

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bagchi R, Gallery RE, Gripenberg S, Gurr SJ, Narayan L, Addis CE, Freckleton RP, Lewis OT (2014) Pathogens and insect herbivores drive rainforest plant diversity and composition. Nature 506 (7486):85–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12911

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barabás G, Meszéna G, Ostling A (2012) Community robustness and limiting similarity in periodic environments. Theor Ecol 5(2):265–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-011-0127-z

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barabás G, D’Andrea R, Rael R, Meszéna G, Ostling A (2013) Emergent neutrality or hidden niches? Oikos 122(11):1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00298.x

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barabás G, Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S (2017) Self-regulation and the stability of large ecological networks. Nat Ecol Evol 1(12):1870–1875. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0357-6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barraquand F, Picoche C, Maurer D, Carassou L, Auby I (2018) Coastal phytoplankton community dynamics and coexistence driven by intragroup density-dependence, light and hydrodynamics. Oikos 127 (12):1834–1852. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05361

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bolker B, Pacala S (1999) Spatial moment equations for plant competition: understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. Am Nat 153(6):575–602. https://doi.org/10.1086/303199

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bolker BM (2003) Combining endogenous and exogenous spatial variability in analytical population models. Theor Popul Biol 64(3):255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-5809(03)00090-X

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boyce DG, Petrie B, Frank KT, Worm B, Leggett WC (2017) Environmental structuring of marine plankton phenology. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1484–1494. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0287-3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carmel Y, Suprunenko YF, Kunin WE, Kent R, Belmaker J, Bar-Massada A, Cornell SJ (2017) Using exclusion rate to unify niche and neutral perspectives on coexistence. Oikos 126(10):1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04380

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chesson P (1994) Multispecies competition in variable environments. Theor Popul Biol 45:227–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/tpbi.1994.1013

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chesson P, Huntly N (1997) The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am Nat 150(5):519–553. https://doi.org/10.1086/286080

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chesson P (2018) Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. J Ecol 106(5):1773–1794. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13035

    Google Scholar 

  19. Comita LS, Queenborough SA, Murphy SJ, Eck JL, Xu K, Krishnadas M, Beckman N, Zhu Y (2014) Testing predictions of the Janzen-Connell hypothesis: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence for distance- and density-dependent seed and seedling survival. J Ecol 102(4):845–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12232

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dakos V, Benincà E, van Nes EH, Philippart CJM, Scheffer M, Huisman J (2009) Interannual variability in species composition explained as seasonally entrained chaos. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276(1669):2871–2880. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0584

    Google Scholar 

  21. D’Andrea R, Ostling A (2016) Challenges in linking trait patterns to niche differentiation. Oikos 125 (10):1369–1385. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02979

    Google Scholar 

  22. D’Andrea R, Ostling A, O’Dwyer J (2018) Translucent windows: how uncertainty in competitive interactions impacts detection of community pattern. Ecol Lett 21(6):826–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12946

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. D’Andrea R, Riolo M, Ostling A (2019) Generalizing clusters of similar species as a signature of coexistence under competition. PLOS Comput Biol 15(1):e1006688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006688

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Descamps-Julien B, Gonzalez A (2005) Stable coexistence in a fluctuating environment: an experimental demonstration. Ecol 86(10):2815–2824. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1700

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ellner SP, Snyder RE, Adler PB (2016) How to quantify the temporal storage effect using simulations instead of math. Ecol Lett 19(11):1333–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12672

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ellner SP, Snyder RE, Adler PB, Hooker G (2019) An expanded modern coexistence theory for empirical applications. Ecol Lett 22(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fox JW (2013) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.014

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gravel D, Canham CD, Beaudet M, Messier C (2006) Reconciling niche and neutrality: the continuum hypothesis. Ecol Lett 9(4):399–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00884.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hastings A, Abbott KC, Cuddington K, Francis T, Gellner G, Lai YC, Morozov A, Petrovskii S, Scranton K, Zeeman ML (2018) Transient phenomena in ecology. Science 361(6406):eaat6412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haydon D (1994) Pivotal assumptions determining the relationship between stability and complexity: an analytical synthesis of the stability-complexity debate. Am Nat 144(1):14–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/285658

    Google Scholar 

  31. Holt R (2006) Emergent neutrality. Trends Ecol Evol 21(10):531–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography (MPB-32). Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  33. Huisman J, Johansson AM, Folmer EO, Weissing FJ (2001) Towards a solution of the plankton paradox: the importance of physiology and life history. Ecol Lett 4(5):408–411. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00256.x

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hutchinson GE (1961) The paradox of the plankton. Am Nat 95(882):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1086/282171

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jabot F, Lohier T (2016) Non-random correlation of species dynamics in tropical tree communities. Oikos 125(12):1733–1742. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03103

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jiang L, Morin PJ (2007) Temperature fluctuation facilitates coexistence of competing species in experimental microbial communities. J Anim Ecol 76(4):660–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01252.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kawatsu K, Kondoh M (2018) Density-dependent interspecific interactions and the complexity–stability relationship. Proc R Soc B 285(1879):20180698. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0698

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kokkoris GD, Jansen VAA, Loreau M, Troumbis AY (2002) Variability in interaction strength and implications for biodiversity. J Anim Ecol 71(2):362–371. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00604.x

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kuang JJ, Chesson P (2009) Coexistence of annual plants: generalist seed predation weakens the storage effect. Ecol 90(1):170–182. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0207.1

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kuang JJ, Chesson P (2010) Interacting coexistence mechanisms in annual plant communities: frequency-dependent predation and the storage effect. Theor Popul Biol 77(1):56–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2009.11.002

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Li L, Chesson P (2016) The effects of dynamical rates on species coexistence in a variable environment: the paradox of the plankton revisited. Am Nat 188(2):E46–E58. https://doi.org/10.1086/687111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Litchman E, Klausmeier CA (2001) Competition of phytoplankton under fluctuating light. Am Nat 157 (2):170–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/318628

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Loranger J, Munoz F, Shipley B, Violle C (2018) What makes trait-abundance relationships when both environmental filtering and stochastic neutral dynamics are at play? Oikos 127:1735–1745. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05398

    Google Scholar 

  44. Miller ET, Klausmeier CA (2017) Evolutionary stability of coexistence due to the storage effect in a two-season model. Theor Ecol 10(1):91–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-016-0314-z

    Google Scholar 

  45. Moisan JR, Moisan TA, Abbott MR (2002) Modelling the effect of temperature on the maximum growth rates of phytoplankton populations. Ecol Model 153(3):197–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00008-X

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mordecai EA (2015) Pathogen impacts on plant diversity in variable environments. Oikos 124(4):414–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01328

    Google Scholar 

  47. Murrell DJ, Law R (2002) Heteromyopia and the spatial coexistence of similar competitors. Ecol Lett 6 (1):48–59. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00397.x

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mutshinda CM, O’Hara RB, Woiwod IP (2009) What drives community dynamics? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276(1669):2923–2929. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0523

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pigolotti S, López C, Hernández-García E, Andersen K (2010) How Gaussian competition leads to lumpy or uniform species distributions. Theor Ecol 3(2):89–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-009-0056-2

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reynolds CS (2006) The ecology of phytoplankton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rinaldi S, Murator S, Kuznetsov Y (1993) Multiple attractors, catastrophes and chaos in seasonally perturbed predator-prey communities. Bull Math Biol 55(1):15–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02460293

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ruokolainen L, Lindén A, Kaitala V, Fowler M (2009) Ecological and evolutionary dynamics under coloured environmental variation. Trends Ecol Evol 24(10):555–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.009

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sakavara A, Tsirtsis G, Roelke DL, Mancy R, Spatharis S (2018) Lumpy species coexistence arises robustly in fluctuating resource environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(4):738–743. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705944115

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Scheffer M, Rinaldi S, Kuznetsov Y, van Nes E (1997) Seasonal dynamics of Daphnia and algae explained as a periodically forced predator-prey system. Oikos 80(3):519. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546625

    Google Scholar 

  55. Scheffer M, van Nes EH (2006) Self-organized similarity, the evolutionary emergence of groups of similar species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(16):6230–6235. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508024103

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Scranton K, Vasseur DA (2016) Coexistence and emergent neutrality generate synchrony among competitors in fluctuating environments. Theor Ecol 9(3):353–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-016-0294-z

    Google Scholar 

  57. Segura AM, Calliari D, Kruk C, Conde D, Bonilla S, Fort H (2011) Emergent neutrality drives phytoplankton species coexistence. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278 (1716):2355–2361. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2464

    Google Scholar 

  58. Segura AM, Kruk C, Calliari D, Garcìa-Rodriguez F, Conde D, Widdicombe CE, Fort H (2013) Competition drives clumpy species coexistence in estuarine phytoplankton. Sci Rep 3:1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01037

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Snyder RE (2008) When does environmental variation most influence species coexistence? Theor Ecol 1 (3):129–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-008-0015-3

    Google Scholar 

  60. Sommer U (1984) The paradox of the plankton: Fluctuations of phosphorus availability maintain diversity of phytoplankton in flow-through cultures. Limnol Oceanogr 29(3):633–636. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1984.29.3.0633

    Google Scholar 

  61. Stump SM (2017) Multispecies coexistence without diffuse competition; or, why phylogenetic signal and trait clustering weaken coexistence. Am Nat 190(2):213–228. https://doi.org/10.1086/692470

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Taylor RA, White A, Sherratt JA (2013) How do variations in seasonality affect population cycles?. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280(20122714). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2714

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tyson R, Lutscher F (2016) Seasonally varying predation behavior and climate shifts are predicted to affect predator-prey cycles. Am Nat 188(5):539–553. https://doi.org/10.1086/688665

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Vasseur DA, Yodzis P (2004) The color of environmental noise. Ecology 85 (4):1146–1152. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-3122

    Google Scholar 

  65. Vesipa R, Ridolfi L (2017) Impact of seasonal forcing on reactive ecological systems. J Theor Biol 419:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.01.036

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Winder M, Cloern JE (2010) The annual cycles of phytoplankton biomass. Philosop Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 365(1555):3215–3226. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0125

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wootton JT, Emmerson M (2005) Measurement of interaction strength in nature. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36(1):419–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.091704.175535

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zhao XQ (1991) The qualitative analysis of n-species Lotka-Volterra periodic competition systems. Math Comput Model 15(11):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(91)90100-L

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Alix Sauve for thoughtful comments and some bibliographic references. We are very grateful to György Barabás and an anonymous referee for their constructive feedback.

Funding

This study was supported by the French ANR through LabEx COTE (ANR-10-LABX-45).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Coralie Picoche.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 195 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Picoche, C., Barraquand, F. How self-regulation, the storage effect, and their interaction contribute to coexistence in stochastic and seasonal environments. Theor Ecol 12, 489–500 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-019-0420-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Coexistence
  • Seasonality
  • Competition
  • Phytoplankton
  • Lotka-Volterra
  • Storage effect