4.7 Article

Intransitivity is infrequent and fails to promote annual plant coexistence without pairwise niche differences

Journal

ECOLOGY
Volume 98, Issue 5, Pages 1193-1200

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.1782

Keywords

California grasslands; competitive networks; functional traits; intransitive competition; rock-paper-scissors dynamics; stabilizing processes; trait dispersion patterns

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry for Education and Science (Juan de la Cierva) [JCI-2012-12061]
  2. Royal Society of New Zealand [UOC-1101]
  3. NSF DEB [1644641]
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [1644641] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intransitive competition is often projected to be a widespread mechanism of species coexistence in ecological communities. However, it is unknown how much of the coexistence we observe in nature results from this mechanism when species interactions are also stabilized by pairwise niche differences. We combined field-parameterized models of competition among 18 annual plant species with tools from network theory to quantify the prevalence of intransitive competitive relationships. We then analyzed the predicted outcome of competitive interactions with and without pairwise niche differences. Intransitive competition was found for just 15-19% of the 816 possible triplets, and this mechanism was never sufficient to stabilize the coexistence of the triplet when the pair wise niche differences between competitors were removed. Of the transitive and intransitive triplets, only four were predicted to coexist and these were more similar in multidimensional trait space defined by 11 functional traits than non coexisting triplets. Our results argue that intransitive competition may be less frequent than recently posed, and that even when it does operate, pairwise niche differences may be key to possible coexistence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available