当前位置: X-MOL 学术Oikos › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
An empiricist's guide to modern coexistence theory for competitive communities
Oikos ( IF 3.1 ) Pub Date : 2020-06-12 , DOI: 10.1111/oik.06957
Casey M. Godwin 1, 2 , Feng‐Hsun Chang 1 , Bradley J. Cardinale 1, 2
Affiliation  

While many ecological theories have historically invoked niche differences as the primary mechanism allowing species coexistence, we now know that coexistence in competitive communities depends on the balance of two opposing forces: niche differences (ND) that determine how species limit their own growth rate versus that of their competitor, and relative fitness differences (RFD) that establish competitive hierarchies among species. Several different empirical methods have been proposed for quantifying ND and RFD in order to make predictions about coexistence between pairs of species, yet it remains unclear which method(s) are appropriate for a given empirical study and whether or not those methods yield the same information. Here we compare six different empirical methods and provide a practical guide to help empiricists determine which method(s) are best for their study system. We show that there are important tradeoffs between mechanistic methods, which require detailed understanding of species’ resource use and physiology but are more tractable experimentally, and phenomenological methods which do not require this detailed information but can be impractical for some study designs. Finally, we show that the methods do not always yield the same values and therefore we caution against future syntheses that compile these estimates from different empirical studies.

中文翻译:

经验主义者的竞争社区现代共存理论指南

尽管许多生态学理论在历史上曾将生态位差异作为允许物种共存的主要机制,但我们现在知道竞争社区中的共存取决于两种对立力量的平衡:生态位差异(ND),它决定物种如何限制自身的生长速度和的竞争者,以及在物种之间建立竞争等级的相对适应性差异(RFD)。为了对物种对之间的共存进行预测,已经提出了几种不同的经验方法来量化ND和RFD,但仍不清楚哪种方法适合于给定的经验研究,以及这些方法是否产生相同的信息。 。在这里,我们比较了六种不同的经验方法,并提供了实践指南,以帮助经验主义者确定哪种方法最适合其学习系统。我们表明,在机械方法之间存在重要的权衡,这需要对物种的资源使用和生理进行详细的了解,但在实验上更易于处理;而现象学的方法则不需要这些详细的信息,但对于某些研究设计而言是不切实际的。最后,我们证明了这些方法并不总是能产生相同的值,因此,我们告诫不要将来汇编来自不同经验研究的估计值的未来综合方法。它需要对物种的资源利用和生理有详细的了解,但在实验上更容易处理;而现象学的方法不需要这些详细的信息,但对于某些研究设计可能是不切实际的。最后,我们证明了这些方法并不总是能产生相同的值,因此,我们告诫不要将来汇编来自不同经验研究的估计值的未来综合方法。它需要对物种的资源利用和生理有详细的了解,但在实验上更容易处理;而现象学的方法不需要这些详细的信息,但对于某些研究设计可能是不切实际的。最后,我们证明了这些方法并不总是产生相同的值,因此,我们告诫不要对未来的合成进行汇编,这些合成来自不同的经验研究。
更新日期:2020-06-12
down
wechat
bug