Coexistence of Competitors in a Stochastic Environment: The Storage Effect

  • Peter L. Chesson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Biomathematics book series (LNBM, volume 52)


The pre-reproductive, or juvenile stages of an organism, are often the most precarious. These are the stages in the life cycle that are most subject to the vagaries of the environment, while potentially reproductive adults tend to have both higher average survivorship and more predictable survivorship. It follows that recruitment to the adult population is often much more variable than adult survivorship. This difference in variability is increased in some species by a tendency of adults to reduce reproductive effort when conditions are poor thus increasing their own survivorship or enhancing later reproductive success (Murdoch 1966, Goodman 1974, Nichols et al. 1976, Tyler and Dunn 1976).


Recruitment Rate Adult Survivorship Adult Death Rate Stochastic Environment Storage Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams, P. (1975): Limiting similarity and the form of the competition coefficient, Theoret. Pop. Biol. 8: 356–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, R.A. and R. McGehee (1980): Competitive exclusion, Am. Nat. 115: 151-170.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Chesson, P.L. (1978): Predator-prey theory and variability, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9: 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesson, P.L. (1982): The stabilizing effect of a random environment, J. Math. Biol. 15: 1–36.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesson, P.L. and R.R. Warner (1981): Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems, Am. Nat. 117: 923–943.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellner, S.P. (1983); Stationary distributions for some stochastic difference equation models, J. Math. Biol. To appear.Google Scholar
  7. Goodman, D. (1974): Natural selection and a cost ceiling on reproductive effort, Am. Nat. 108: 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grubb, P.J. (1977): The maintenance of species richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche, Biol. Rev. 52: 107–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gulland, J.A. (1982): Why do fish numbers vary? J. Theor. Biol. 97: 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harper, J.L. (1977): Population Biology of Plants, Academic Press, London, 892 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Hubbell, S.P. (1980): Seed predation and the coexistence of tree species in tropical forests, Oikos 35: 214–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leslie, P.H. (1958): A stochastic model for studying the properties of certain biological systems by numerical methods, Biometrika 45: 16–31.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Murdoch, W.W. (1966): Population stability and life history phenomena, Am. Nat. 100: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nichols, J.D., W. Conley, B. Batt, and A.R. Tipton (1976): Temporally dynamic reproductive strategies and the concept of r- and K- selection, Am. Nat. 110: 995–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schmida, A. and S. Ellner (1983): Coexistence of trophically equivalent plant species, Vegetatio,in press.Google Scholar
  16. Turelli, M. (1978): Does environmental variability limit niche overlap? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75: 5085–5089.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tyler, A.V. and R.S. Dunn (1976): Ration, growth, and measures of organ condition in relation to meal frequency in winter flounder, Pseudo-pleuronectes americanus, with hypotheses regarding population homeostasis, J. Fish. Res. Board Canada 33: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter L. Chesson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations