4.7 Article

Stress response and population dynamics: Is Allee effect hormesis?

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 682, 期 -, 页码 623-628

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.212

关键词

Allee effect; Biotic stress; Biphasic dose-response; Hormesis; Intraspecific competition; Population dynamics

资金

  1. Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology (NUIST), Nanjing, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hormesis is a fundamental notion in ecotoxicology while competition between organisms is an essential notion in population ecology and species adaptation and evolution. Both sub-disciplines of ecology deal with the response of organisms to abiotic and biotic stresses. In ecotoxicology, the Linear-non-Threshold (LNT), Threshold and Hormetic models are used to describe the dominant responses of a plethora of endpoints to abiotic stress. In population ecology, the logistic, theta-logistic and the Allee effect models are used to describe the growth of populations under different responses to (biotic) stress induced by population density. The per capital rate of population increase (r) measures species fitness. When it is used as endpoint, the responses to population density seem to perfectly correspond to LNT, Threshold and Hormetic responses to abiotic stress, respectively. Our analysis suggests the Allee effect is a hormetic-like response of r to population density, an ultimate biotic stress. This biphasic dose-response model appears across different systems and situations (from molecules to tumor growth to population dynamics), is highly supported by ecological and evolutionary theory, and has important implications in most sub-disciplines of biology as well as in environmental and earth silences. Joined multi-disciplinary efforts would facilitate the development and application of advanced research approaches for better understanding potential planetary-scale implications. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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