4.6 Article

Tropical Forests Are Non-Equilibrium Ecosystems Governed by Interspecific Competition Based on Universal 1/6 Niche Width

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082768

关键词

-

资金

  1. PEDECIBA
  2. SNI of Uruguay
  3. National Science Foundation [DEB-0640386, DEB-0425651, DEB-0346488, DEB-0129874, DEB-00753102, DEB-9909347, DEB-9615226, DEB-9405933, DEB-9221033, DEB-9100058, DEB-8906869, DEB-8605042, DEB-8206992, DEB-7922197]
  4. Center for Tropical Forest Science
  5. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
  6. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  7. Mellon Foundation
  8. Small World Institute Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tropical forests are mega-diverse ecosystems that display complex and non-equilibrium dynamics. However, theoretical approaches have largely focused on explaining steady-state behaviour and fitting snapshots of data. Here we show that local and niche interspecific competition can realistically and parsimoniously explain the observed non-equilibrium regime of permanent plots of nine tropical forests, in eight different countries. Our spatially-explicit model, besides predicting with accuracy the main biodiversity metrics for these plots, can also reproduce their dynamics. A central finding is that tropical tree species have a universal niche width of approximately 1/6 of the niche axis that echoes the observed widespread convergence in their functional traits enabling them to exploit similar resources and to coexist despite of having large niche overlap. This niche width yields an average ratio of 0.25 between interspecific and intraspecific competition that corresponds to an intermediate value between the extreme claims of the neutral model and the classical niche-based model of community assembly (where interspecific competition is dominant). In addition, our model can explain and yield observed spatial patterns that classical niche-based and neutral theories cannot.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据