Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis

By P. Amarasekare. 2003

919 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f301435ae4c0f39137fe92c77e00de2ee4aa33f9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Network isolation and local diversity in neutral metacommunities (2010, background): “Recent theory has established the importance of these connections for changing and propagating ecological dynamics (Levin 1992, Hubbell 2001, Holt 2002, Amarasekare 2003, Leibold et al. 2004).”
Eating their way to the top? Mechanisms underlying the success of invasive insect generalist predators (2010, background): “Niche partitioning between species can foster coexistence by increasing costs associated with intraspecific competition relative to interspecific competition, or by providing refuges from competition (Schoener 1974; Chesson 2000; Amarasekare 2003; Finke and Snyder 2008).”
Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling (2006, background): “Therefore, co-occurring species can have intersecting realized niches and coexist in space and time (see also Amarasekare, 2003).”
Modelling the influence of biotic factors on species distribution patterns (2016, positive): “Biotic interactions can take place at local scales, for example, predation, parasitism, competition and disturbance, or regional scales, for example, dispersal, speciation, extinction and expansions or contractions of species ranges (Cornell & Lawton, 1992; Amarasekare, 2003).”
Accurate predictions of coexistence in natural systems require the inclusion of facilitative interactions and environmental dependency (2018, background): “…theoretical predictions that variation in competitive effects is important for mediating the effects of environmental heterogeneity on coexistence (Amarasekare, 2003), fluctuations in interaction strengths are typically kept implicit within these models and few studies investigate how this…”
The geographic scaling of biotic interactions (2013, neutral): “2-EV Schoener 1982, Amarasekare 2003).”
Trade‐offs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence (2004, background): “When a system is spatially explicit, additional trade-offs can be incurred where space can also be partitioned (see reviews in Kareiva 1990; Tilman & Pacala 1993; Tilman & Kareiva 1997; Amarasekare 2003).”
The state of plant population modelling in light of environmental change (2008, background): “, 2008) and more general mechanisms of coexistence of plant species (e.g. Mertens et al., 2002; Matsinos and Troumbis, 2002; Amarasekare, 2003; Amarasekare et al., 2004, Gardner and Engelhardt, 2008).”
Contrasts between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework. (2009, background): “Further, it assumes that dispersal is limited and species loss is likely to occur due to stochastic extinction (Amarasekare 2003).”
Are urban systems beneficial, detrimental, or indifferent for biological invasion? (2017, background): “This not only results from changes in reproduction and performance, but also because urban habitats might have less natural heterogeneity for species to exploit (Pickett et al. 2008) and so species’ realized niches overlap much more than they would in natural habitats (Amarasekare 2003).”
An idealized model for tree–grass coexistence in savannas: the role of life stage structure and fire disturbances (2009, background): “plant species apparently eludes the competitive exclusion principle (e.g. Hastings 1980; Tilman 1994; Pacala & Rees 1998; Chesson 2000; Amarasekare 2003; Barot 2004).”
Tree–grass coexistence in the Brazilian cerrado: demographic consequences of environmental instability (2006, background): “Recent theoretical advances, models and empirical evidence indicate that early savanna models are also inadequate in their adherence to two other assumptions of equilibrium theory; spatial homogeneity and temporal stability in environmental determinants (e.g. Simoni et al., 2000; Amarasekare, 2003; ”
Ontogenetic shift from facilitation to competition in a desert shrub (2006, background): “The spatiotemporal dynamics of this shift agree with a recent summary of spatial coexistence in plant communities, which presents three axes of ecological differences that promote coexistence: resource partitioning, temporal niche partitioning and spatial niche partitioning (Amarasekare 2003).”
The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology (2004, background): “These considerations lead to the idea that a synthesis of mass-effect and species-sorting perspectives is probably most easily done, and indeed such synthesis has already been suggested (Amarasekare & Nisbet 2001; Mouquet & Loreau 2002, 2003; Amarasekare 2003).”
Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology. (2006, background): “…abilities, and if this is not so, species may either go extinct from the metacommunity much faster than predicted by the neutral model or they may coexist at either the local or regional scale via colonization-competition trade-offs (Tilman 1994, see Amarasekare 2003 for a general review).”