Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Competition and Coexistence pp 109–131Cite as

Competition and Coexistence of Mobile Animals

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Ecological Studies ((ECOLSTUD,volume 161))

Abstract

Competitive interactions among species lie at the foundation of our understanding of the structure and diversity of ecological communities. For the past century, various theoretical, laboratory and field studies have sought to understand how species that compete can coexist. Almost two decades ago, two influential reviews (Connell 1983; Schoener 1983) demonstrated that, at least in published studies, interspecific competition appears to be frequent. Just as importantly, these reviews found little evidence for competitive exclusion, that is, when one species completely eliminates another species when they occur together. In these reviews, competitive exclusion appeared especially rare for mobile animal species, as opposed to sedentary species such as inter-tidal organisms and vascular plants. Since 1983, competition theory has focused on identifying mechanisms to explain this “unexpected” prevalence of coexistence. In this chapter, I show that mobile animal species are highly likely to coexist because of their ability to move and make choices. These choices result in resource or habitat partitioning that allow exclusive use of resources, so that the structure of communities can be predicted largely in the absence of detailed knowledge of competitive dynamics.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abrams PA (1988) Resource productivity-consumer species diversity: simple models of competition in spatially heterogeneous environments. Ecology 69:1418–1433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams PA (1990) Adaptive responses of generalist herbivores to competition: convergence or divergence. Evol Ecol 4:103–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala FJ, Gilpin ME, Ehrenfeld JG (1973) Competition between species: theoretical models and experimental tests. Theor Popul Biol 4:331–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barnsley M (1988) Fractals everywhere. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1984) Moose and snowshoe hare competition and a mechanistic explanation from foraging theory. Oecologia 61:150–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1986) Generalist herbivore foraging and its role in competitive interactions. Am Zool 26:51–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Belovsky GE (1997) Optimal foraging and community structure: the allometry of herb ivore food selection and competition. Evol Ecol 11:641–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodman R (1999) Food and space dependent effects during the interactions of two species of larval salamanders. J Freshwater Ecol 14:431–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Davidson DW (1977) Competition between seed-eating rodents and ants in desert ecosystems. Science 196:880–882

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Davidson DW, Reichman OJ (1979) An experimental study of competition between seed-eating desert rodents and ants. Am Zool 19:1129–1143

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Kotler BP, Mitchell WM (1994) Foraging theory, patch use, and the structure of a Negev Desert granivore community. Ecology 75:2286–2300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell BD, Grime JP, Mackey JML (1991) A trade-off between scale and precision in resource foraging. Oecologia 87:532–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capizzi D, Luiseli L (1996) Feeding relationships and competitive interactions between phylogenetically unrelated predators (owls and snakes). Acta Oecol 17:265–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chase JM (1996) Differential competitive interactions and the included niche: an experimental test with grasshoppers. Oikos 76:103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesson P (1994) Multi-species competition in variable environments. Theor Popul Biol 45:227–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DW, Brown JH, Inouye RS (1980) Competition and the structure of granivore communities. Bioscience 30:233–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DW, Samson DA, Inouye RS (1985) Granivory in the Chihuahuan desert: interactions within and between trophic levels. Ecology 66:486–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards GP, Croft DB, Dawson TJ (1996) Competition between red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and sheep (Ovis aries) in the arid rangelands of Australia. Aust J Ecol 21:165–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans EW (1995) Interactions among grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in intermountain grassland of western North America. Oikos 73:73–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fasola M, Caova L (2000) Asymmetrical competition between the bank vole and the wood mouse, a removal experiment. Acta Theriol 45:353–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Garb J, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2000) Foraging and community consequences of seed size for coexisting Negev Desert granivores. Oikos 88:291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Hafner, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Hairston NG (1981) An experimental test of a guild: salamander competition. Ecology 62:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hairston NG (1986) Species packing in Desmognathus salamanders: experimental demonstration of predation and competition. Am Nat 127:266–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heske EJ, Brown JH, Mistry S (1994) Long-term experimental study of a Chihuahuan Desert rodent community: 13 years of competition. Ecology 75:438–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman J, Jonker RR, Zonneveld C, Weissing FJ (1999) Competition for light between phytoplankton species: experimental tests of mechanistic theory. Ecology 80:211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson GE, MacArthur RH (1959) A theoretical model of size distributions among species of animals. Am Nat 93:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Brown JS (1999) Mechanisms of coexistence of optimal foragers as determinants of local abundances and distributions of desert granivores. J Mammal 80:361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA (1996) A graphical model of keystone predators in food webs: trophic regulation of abundance, incidence and diversity patterns in communities. Am Nat 147:784–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1962) A theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. 1. The fitness set and adaptive function. Am Nat 96:361–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeb SC, Hooper RG (1997) An experimental test of interspecific competition for Redcockaded woodpecker cavities. J Wildl Manage 61:1268–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losos JB, Spiller DA (1999) Differential colonization success and asymmetrical interactions between two lizard species. Ecology 80:252–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka AJ (1925) Elements of mathematical biology. Williams and Whitkins, New York (reprint 1956 by Dover, New York)

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH (1958) Population ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests. Ecology 39:599–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH (1969) Species packing, and what interspecies competition minimizes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 64:1369–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne BT (1992) Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. Am Nat 139:32–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne BT (1997) Applications of fractal geometry in wildlife biology. In: Bissonette JA (ed) Wildlife and landscape ecology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 32–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne BT, Turner MG, Wiens JA, Johnson AR (1992) Interactions between fractal geometry oflandscapes and allometric herbivory. Theor Popul Biol 41:337–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan RA, Brown JS, Thorson JM (1997) The effect of spatial scale on the functional response of fox squirrels. Ecology 78:1087–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris DW, Fox BJ, Luo J, Monamy V (2000) Habitat-dependent competition and the coexistence of Australian heathland rodents. Oikos 91:294–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olff H, Ritchie ME (2001) Fragmented nature: consequences for biodiversity. Landscape Urban Planning 58:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MW (1992) The coexistence of species in fractal landscapes. Am Nat 139:375–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petren K, Case TJ (1996) An experimental demonstration of exploitation competition in an ongoing invasion. Ecology 77:118–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petren K, Case TJ (1998) Habitat structure determines competition intensity and invasion success in gecko lizards. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:11739–11744

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME (1998) Scale-dependent foraging and optimal patch choice in fractal environments. Evol Ecol 12:309–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME (2000) Nitrogen limitation and trophic vs. abiotic influences on insect herbivores in a temperate grassland. Ecology 81:1601–1612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME, Olff H (1999) Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400:557–560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME, Tilman D (1992) Interspecific competition among grasshoppers and their effect on plant abundance in experimental field environments. Oecologia 89:524–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie ME, Tilman D (1993) Predictions of species interactions from consumerresource theory: experimental tests with grasshoppers and plants. Oecologia 94:516–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1981) A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62:327–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z (1997) Two gerbils of the Negev: a long-term investigation of optimal habitat selection and its consequences. Evol Ecol 11:733–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothhaupt KO (1988) Mechanistic resource competition theory applied to laboratory experiments with zooplankton. Nature 333:660–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Beckerman AP, O’Brien KM (1997) Behaviorally mediated trophic cascades: effects of predation risk on food web interactions. Ecology 78:1388–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz OJ, Hamback PA, Beckerman AP (2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155:141–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schoener TW (1976) Alternatives to Lotka-Volterra competition: models of intermediate complexity. Theor Popul Biol 10:309–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A, Crowley P, McPeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985). Predation, competition and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:269–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1976) Ecological competition between algae: experimental confirmation of resource-based competition theory. Science 192:463–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1990) Constraints and trade-offs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58:3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Soest P (1985) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer JH (1972) Niche theory. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 3:107–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volterra V (1926) Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically. Nature 118:558–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Hall DJ (1979) Foraging efficiency and habitat switching in competing sunfishes. Ecology 60:256–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1992) The ecology of bird communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1995) Habitat fragmentation: island vs. landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137:S97–S104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur HM (1997) Experimental ecology of food webs: complex systems in temporary ponds. Ecology 78:2279–2302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson WG, Osenberg CW, Schmitt RJ, Nisbet RM (1999) Complementary foraging behaviors allow coexistence of two consumers. Ecology 80:2358–2372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wissinger SA, Sparks GB, Rouse GL, Brown WS, Steltzer H (1996) Intraguild predation and cannibalism among larvae of detritivorous caddisflies in subalpine wetlands. Ecology 77:2421–2430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wootton JT (1994) Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology 75:151–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. M. Ritchie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ritchie, M. (2002). Competition and Coexistence of Mobile Animals. In: Competition and Coexistence. Ecological Studies, vol 161. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56166-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56166-5_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-62800-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-56166-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation