Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Species Competition and Predation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ecological Systems

Abstract

Biogeochemistry represents the interaction of biology, chemistry, and geology in the Earth system. For many processes, an understanding of biological uptake and emission, chemical processing, and geological sequestration is necessary to resolve the sources and sinks of a particular constituent. For example, to discover the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide, it is important to understand how biota take up carbon dioxide and chemically convert the carbon to organic carbon, and then how this organic carbon is used either to produce energy by biota or is deposited to the land or ocean surface and can become sequestered in geological formations.

This chapter was originally published as part of the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology edited by Robert A. Meyers. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Apparent competition:

The tendency for an increase in the density of a species to increase the impact of a natural enemy on that same species or other species.

Competition:

The tendency for an increase in the density of a species to have a negative effect on the survival or reproduction of individuals of the same species or of other species by reducing resource abundance, reducing access to resources, or by direct harm of one individual organism on another associated with resource acquisition.

Density dependence:

The tendency for an increase in the density of a species to have a negative effect on the survival or reproduction of individuals of the same or different species. As used in this essay, the species in question are in the same guild. Competition and apparent competition are special cases of density dependence.

Feedback loop:

A chain of species interactions from one member of a guild, through other species, back to a species in that same guild. Feedback loops transmit density dependence.

Guild:

A group of species potentially co-occurring in the same locality and having similar ecology in the sense of depending on the same or similar resources, often seeking those resources in similar ways, and susceptible to the same or similar natural enemies. The standard of similarity in this definition is not precise, and varies depending on the purpose of the investigator.

Natural enemy:

An organism that benefits its own reproduction or survival by harming the individuals of a given species, commonly by feeding on them.

Niche overlap:

For any pair of species, the degree to which density dependence through feedback loops is concentrated between species compared to within species. It is measured by the quantity ρ which varies between zero for no overlap (no interspecific density dependence) and 1 for complete overlap (interspecific density dependence is on average equal to intraspecific density dependence).

Predator:

A species that gains food by killing and consuming individuals of the species in the ecological guild in question.

Species average fitness:

For a given species in a guild, it is a numerical measure of how well that species is adapted to the environment with the property that it predicts which species would dominate if the niche overlaps, ρ, were all equal to 1. It is normally related to the long-term average per capita growth rates of the species measured at fixed levels of competition and apparent competition. In this essay, the fitnesses κ are obtained from per capita growth rates at zero levels of competition and apparent competition, which are achieved by setting all members of a guild at zero density. These growth rates are then divided by scaling factors that correct for differences between species in their levels of sensitivity to competition and apparent competition.

Stable coexistence:

The tendency of the members of a guild to recover when individually perturbed to low density, allowing their long-term persistence in the presence of interactions with other guild members.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. Murdoch WW, Briggs CJ, Nisbet RM (2003) Consumer-resource dynamics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  2. MacArthur R (1970) Species packing and competitive equilibrium for many species. Theor Popul Biol 1:1–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  5. Grubb PJ (1977) The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol Rev 52:107–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harper JL (1977) Population biology of plants. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Connolly SR, Roughgarden J (1999) Theory of marine communities: competition, predation, and recruitment-dependent interaction strength. Ecol Monogr 69:277–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Frank DA, McNaughton SJ, Tracy BF (1998) The ecology of the Earth's grazing ecosystems. Bioscience 48:513–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Birch LC (1957) The meanings of competition. Am Nat 91:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dayan T, Simberloff D (2005) Ecological and community-wide character displacement: the next generation. Ecol Lett 8:875–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Adler PB, HilleRisLambers J, Levine JM (2007) A niche for neutrality. Ecol Lett 10:95–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chesson P (2008) Quantifying and testing species coexistence mechanisms. In: Valladares F, Camacho A, Elosegui A, Gracia C, Estrada M, Senar JC, Gili JM (eds) Unity in diversity: reflections on ecology after the legacy of Ramon Margalef. Fundacion BBVA, Bilbao, pp 119–164

    Google Scholar 

  14. Siepielski AM, McPeek MA (2010) On the evidence for species coexistence: a critique of the coexistence program. Ecology 91:3153–3164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chase JM, Abrams PA, Grover JP, Diehl S, Chesson P, Holt RD, Richards SA, Nisbet RM, Case TJ (2002) The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol Lett 5:302–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chesson P, Kuang JJ (2008) The interaction between predation and competition. Nature 456:235–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theor Popul Biol 12:197–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nicholson AJ (1937) The role of competition in determining animal populations. JSIR (Australia) 10:101–106

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals. Am Nat 93:145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Roughgarden J (1989) Community structure and assembly. In: Roughgarden J, May RM, Levin SA (eds) Perspectives in ecological theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 203–226

    Google Scholar 

  22. Holt RD (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. Am Nat 124:377–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chesson P, Huntly N (1993) Temporal hierarchies of variation and the maintenance of diversity. Plant Species Biol 8:195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kang Y, Chesson P (2010) Relative nonlinearity and permanence. Theor Popul Biol 78:26–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Holt RD, Polis GA (1997) A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am Nat 149:745–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Abrams PA (1998) High competition with low similarity and low competition with high similarity: exploitative and apparent competition in consumer-resource systems. Am Nat 152:114–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Abrams PA, Rueffler C (2009) Coexistence and limiting similarity of consumer species competing for a linear array of resources. Ecology 90:812–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hardin G (1960) The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131:1292–1297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2003) Ecological Niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  33. Purves DW, Pacala SW (2005) Ecological drift in niche-structured communities: neutral pattern does not imply neutral process. In: Burslem D, Pinard M, Hartley S (eds) Biotic interactions in the tropics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 103–138

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang DY, Lin K (1997) The effects of competitive asymmetry on the rate of competitive displacement: how robust is Hubbell's community drift model? J Theor Biol 188:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chesson P, Huntly N (1997) The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am Nat 150:519–553

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lubchenco J (1978) Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. Am Nat 112:23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gurevitch J, Morrison JA, Hedges LV (2000) The interaction between competition and predation: a meta-analysis of field experiments. Am Nat 155:435–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat 103:91–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, Menge BA, Bond WJ, Mills LS, Daily G, Castilla JC, Lubchenco J, Paine RT (1996) Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46:609–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Grover JP, Holt RD (1998) Disentangling resource and apparent competition: realistic models for plant-herbivore communities. J Theor Biol 191:353–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Levin SA (1970) Community equilibria and stability, and an extension of the competitive exclusion principle. Am Nat 104:413–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Crooks KR, Soule ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Johnson CN, Isaac JL, Fisher DO (2007) Rarity of a top predator triggers continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 274:341–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Knowlton JL, Donlan CJ, Roemer GW, Samaniego-Herrera A, Kertt BS, Wood B, Aguirre-Munoz A, Faulknier KR, Tershy BR (2007) Eradication of non-native mammals and the status of insular mammals on the California Channel Islands, USA, and Pacific Baja California Peninsula Islands, Mexico. Southwest Nat 52:528–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stephens DW, Brown JS, Ydenberg RC (eds) (2007) Foraging: behavior and ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  46. Haygood R (2002) Coexistence in MacArthur-style consumer–resource models. Theor Popul Biol 61:215–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Holt RD (1985) Density-independent morality, nonlinear competitive interactions and species coexistence. J Theor Biol 116:479–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kotler BP, Holt RD (1989) Predation and competition: the interaction of two types of species interactions. Oikos 54:256–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Holt RD, Grover J, Tilman D (1994) Simple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. Am Nat 144:741–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kuang JJ, Chesson P (2010) Interacting coexistence mechanisms in annual plant communities: frequency-dependent predation and the storage effect. Theor Popul Biol 77:56–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Chesson P, Kuang JJ (2010) The storage effect due to frequency-dependent predation in multispecies plant communities. Theor Popul Biol 78:148–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Murdoch WW, Bence J (1987) General predators and unstable prey populations. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A (eds) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover and London, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  53. Abrams PA, Matsuda H (2004) Consequences of behavioral dynamics for the population dynamics of predator-prey systems with switching. Popul Ecol 46:13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bond AB (2007) The evolution of color polymorphism: crypticity, searching images, and apostatic selection. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:489–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. The Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hamback P (1998) Seasonality, optimal foraging and prey coexistence. Am Nat 152:881–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Krivan V (2003) Competitive co-existence by adaptive predators. Evol Ecol Res 5:1163–1182

    Google Scholar 

  58. May RM (1974) Stability and complexity in model ecosystems, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  59. Chesson P, Gebauer RLE, Schwinning S, Huntly N, Wiegand K, Ernest MSK, Sher A, Novoplansky A, Weltzin JF (2004) Resource pulses, species interactions and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 141:236–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Angert AL, Huxman TE, Chesson P, Venable DL (2009) Functional tradeoffs determine species coexistence via the storage effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:11641–11645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Kuang JJ, Chesson P (2009) Coexistence of annual plants: generalist seed predation weakens the storage effect. Ecology 90:170–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kuang JJ, Chesson P (2008) Predation-competition interactions for seasonally recruiting species. Am Nat 171:E119–E133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Abrams P, Holt R (2002) The impact of consumer–resource cycles on the coexistence of competing consumers. Theor Popul Biol 62:281–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Huisman J, Weissing FJ (1999) Biodiversity of plankton by species oscillations and chaos. Nature 402:407–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Huisman J, Weissing FJ (2001) Fundamental unpredictability in multispecies competition. Am Nat 157:488–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Amarasekare P, Nisbet RM (2001) Spatial heterogeneity, source-sink dynamics, and the local coexistence of competing species. Am Nat 158:572–584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Muko S, Iwasa Y (2003) Incomplete mixing promotes species coexistence in a lottery model with permanent spatial heterogeneity. Theor Popul Biol 64:359–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Snyder RE, Chesson P (2004) How the spatial scales of dispersal, competition, and environmental heterogeneity interact to affect coexistence. Am Nat 164:633–650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Miller AD, Chesson P (2009) Coexistence in disturbance prone communities: how a resistance-resilience trade off generates coexistence via the storage effect. Am Nat 173:E30–E43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Amarasekare P (2008) Spatial dynamics of foodwebs. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:479–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ives AR (1988) Covariance, coexistence and the population dynamics of two competitors using a patchy resource. J Theor Biol 133:345–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Murrell DJ, Purves DW, Law R (2001) Uniting pattern and process in plant ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 16:529–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hartley S, Shorrocks B (2002) A general framework for the aggregation model of coexistence. J Anim Ecol 71:651–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Chesson P, Neuhauser C (2002) Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence. Trends Ecol Evol 17:210–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Bolker B, Pacala S (1999) Spatial moment equations for plant competition: understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. Am Nat 153:575–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hastings A (1980) Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space. Theor Popul Biol 18:363–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Connell JH (1979) Tropical rainforests and coral reefs as open non-equilibrium systems. In: Anderson RM, Turner BD, Taylor LR (eds) Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 141–163

    Google Scholar 

  80. Roxburgh SH, Shea K, Wilson JB (2004) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology 85:359–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Caswell H (1978) Predator-mediated coexistence: a nonequilibrium model. Am Nat 112:127–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Bolker BM, Pacala SW, Neuhauser C (2003) Spatial dynamics in model plant communities: what do we really know? Am Nat 162:135–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Dushoff J, Worden L, Keymer J, Levin S (2002) Metapopulations, community assenbly, and scale invariance in aspect space. Theor Popul Biol 62:329–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Kohyama T (1993) Size-structured tree populations in gap-dynamic forest–the forest architecture hypothesis for the stable coexistence of species. J Ecol 81:131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Vance RR, Nevai AL (2007) Plant population growth and competition in a light gradient: a mathematical model of canopy partitioning. J Theor Biol 245:210–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Connell JH (1970) On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine animals and rainforest trees. In: den Boer PJ, Gradwell G (eds) Dynamics of populations. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, pp 298–312

    Google Scholar 

  87. Janzen DH (1970) Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. Am Nat 104:501–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Adler FR, Muller-Landau HC (2005) When do localized natural enemies increase species richness? Ecol Lett 8:438–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Bever JD, Dickie IA, Facelli E, Facelli JM, Klironomos J, Moora M, Rillig MC, Stock WD, Tibbett M, Zobel M (2010) Rooting theories of plant community ecology in microbial interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 25:468–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Shea K, Chesson P (2002) Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 17:170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Melbourne BA, Cornell HV, Davies KF, Dugaw CJ, Elmendorf S, Freestone AL, Hall RJ, Harrison S, Hastings A, Holland M, Holyoak M, Lambrinos J, Moore K, Yokomizo H (2007) Invasion in a heterogeneous world: resistance, coexistence or hostile takeover? Ecol Lett 10:77–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Drury WH (1998) Chance and change: ecology for conservationists. University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif

    Google Scholar 

  94. Sergio F, Caro T, Brown D, Clucas B, Hunter J, Ketchum J, McHugh K, Hiraldo F (2008) Top predators as conservation tools: ecological rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Kinzig A, Pacala S, Tilman D (eds) (2001) The functional consequences of biodiversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  96. Sax DF, Gaines SD (2008) Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11490–11497

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Reinhart KO, Callaway RM (2006) Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol 170:445–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Sher AA, Hyatt LA (1999) The disturbed resource-flux invasion matrix: a new framework for patterns of plant invasion. Biological Invasions 1:107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Brooks ML (2003) Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual plants in the Mojave Desert. J Appl Ecol 40:344–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Simberloff D (1995) Why do introduced species appear to devastate islands more than mainland areas? Pac Sci 49:87–97

    Google Scholar 

  101. Huston MA (1994) Biological diversity, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  102. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Elton C (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen and Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  104. Levine JM (2000) Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science 288:852–854

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. MacDougall AS, Gilbert B, Levine JM (2009) Plant invasions and the niche. J Ecol 97:609–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Davies KF, Chesson P, Harrison S, Inouye B, Melbourne BA, Rice KJ (2005) Spatial heterogeneity explains the scale dependence of the native-exotic diversity relationship. Ecology 86:1602–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Courchamp F, Woodroffe R, Roemer G (2003) Removing protected populations to save endangered species. Science 302:1532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Wilson JB (2011) The twelve theories of co-existence in plant communities: the doubtful, the important and the unexplored. J Veg Sci 22:184–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Ackerly DD (2003) Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing environments. Int J Plant Sci 164:S165–S184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sears ALW, Chesson P (2007) New methods for quantifying the spatial storage effect: an illustration with desert annuals. Ecology 88:2240–2247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Holt RD (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems. Tree 15:444–445

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Chase JM (2003) Strong and weak trophic cascades along a productivity gradient. Oikos 101:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Terborgh J, Estes JA (2010) Trophic cascades: predators, prey, and the changing dynamics of nature. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  115. Terborgh J, Lopez L, Nunez P, Rao M, Shahabuddin G, Orihuela G, Riveros M, Ascanio R, Adler GH, Lambert TD, Balbas L (2001) Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 294:1923–1926

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Myers RA, Baum JK, Shepherd TD, Powers SP, Peterson CH (2007) Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315:1846–1850

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Letnic M, Koch F (2010) Are dingoes a trophic regulator in arid Australia? A comparison of mammal communities on either side of the dingo fence. Austral Ecol 35:167–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Meyer JR, Ellner SP, Hairston NG, Jones LE, Yoshida T (2006) Prey evolution on the time scale of predator-prey dynamics revealed by allele-specific quantitative PCR. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:10690–10695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Geritz SAH, Kisdi E, Meszena G, Metz JAJ (1998) Evolutionarily singular strategies and the adaptive growth and branching of the evolutionary tree. Evol Ecol 12:35–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Morton RD, Law R (1997) Regional species pools and the assembly of local ecological communities. J Theor Biol 187:321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. O'Dwyer JP, Lake JK, Ostling A, Savage VM, Green JL (2009) An integrative framework for stochastic, size-structured community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:6170–6175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Davis MB (1986) Climatic instability, time-lags and community disequilibrium. In: Diamond J, Case T (eds) Community ecology. Harper and Row, Cambridge, pp 269–284

    Google Scholar 

Books and Reviews

  • Eisenberg C (2010) The wolf's tooth: keystone predators, trophic cascades, and biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant BR (2008) How and why species multiply: the radiation of Darwin's finches. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for comments on the manuscript by Jonathan Levine and for support from the National Science Foundation grant numbers DEB-0717222 and DEB-0816231.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Peter Chesson

Authors
  1. Peter Chesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Chesson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, 6700 AA, Netherlands

    Rik Leemans

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chesson, P. (2013). Species Competition and Predation. In: Leemans, R. (eds) Ecological Systems. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5755-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation