4.7 Article

Coexistence and limiting similarity of consumer species competing for a linear array of resources

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 90, 期 3, 页码 812-822

出版社

ECOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1890/08-0446.1

关键词

coexistence; competition coefficient; consumer-resource system; interspecific competition; limiting similarity; Lotka-Volterra model; nonlinearity

类别

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consumer-resource systems with linear arrays of substitutable resources form the conceptual basis of much of present-day competition theory. However, most analyses of the limiting similarity of competitors have only employed consumer-resource models as a justification for using the Lotka-Volterra competition equations to represent the interaction. Unfortunately, Lotka-Volterra models cannot reflect resource exclusion via apparent competition and are poor approximations of systems with nonlogistic resource growth. We use consumer-resource models to examine the impact of exclusion of biotic resources or depletion of abiotic resources on the ability of three consumer species to coexist along a one-dimensional resource axis. For a wide range of consumer-resource models, coexistence conditions can become more restrictive with increasing niche separation of the two outer species. This occurs when the outer species are highly efficient; in this case they cause extinction or severe depletion of intermediate resources when their own niches have an intermediate level of separation. In many cases coexistence of an intermediate consumer species is prohibited when niche separation of the two outer species is moderately large, but not when it is small. Coexistence may be most likely when the intermediate species is closer to one of the two outer species, contrary to previous theory. These results suggest that competition may lead to uneven spacing of utilization curves. The implications and range of applicability of the models are discussed.

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