Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Interspecific interactions and range limits: contrasts among interaction types

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Theoretical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a great deal of interest in the effects of biotic interactions on geographic distributions. Nature contains many different types of biotic interactions (notably mutualism, commensalism, predation, amensalism, and competition), and it is difficult to compare the effects of multiple interaction types on species’ distributions. To resolve this problem, we analyze a general, flexible model of pairwise biotic interactions that can describe all interaction types. In the absence of strong positive feedback, a species’ ability to be present depends on its ability to increase in numbers when it is rare and the species it is interacting with is at equilibrium. This insight leads to counterintuitive conclusions. Notably, we often predict the same range limit when the focal species experiences competition, predation, or amensalism. Similarly, we often predict the same range margin or when the species experiences mutualism, commensalism, or benefits from prey. In the presence of strong positive density-dependent feedback, different species interactions produce different range limits in our model. In all cases, the abiotic environment can indirectly influence the impact of biotic interactions on range limits. We illustrate the implications of this observation by analyzing a stress gradient where biotic interactions are harmful in benign environments but beneficial in stressful environments. Our results emphasize the need to consider the effects of all biotic interactions on species’ range limits and provide a systematic comparison of when biotic interactions affect distributions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Afkhami ME, McIntyre PJ, Strauss SY (2014) Mutualist-mediated effects on species' range limits across large geographic scales. Ecol Lett 17:1265–1273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo MB, Rozenfeld A (2014) The geographic scaling of biotic interactions. Ecography 37:406–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditi R, Ginzburg LR (1989) Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio-dependence. J Theor Biol 139:311–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beddington JR (1975) Mutual interference between parasites or predators and its effect on searching efficiency. J Anim Ecol:331–340

  • Bever JD et al (2010) Rooting theories of plant community ecology in microbial interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 25:468–478

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buenau KE, Rassweiler A, Nisbet RM (2007) The effects of landscape structure on space competition and alternative stable states. Ecology 88:3022–3031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bull CM, Possingham H (1995) A model to explain ecological parapatry. Am Nat:935–947

  • Callaway RM et al (2002) Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. Nature 417:844–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Case TJ, Taper ML (2000) Interspecific competition, environmental gradients, gene flow, and the coevolution of species' borders. Am Nat 155:583–605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Case TJ, Holt RD, McPeek MA, Keitt TH (2005) The community context of species borders: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Oikos 102:28–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain SA, Bronstein JL, Rudgers JA (2014) How context dependent are species interactions? Ecol Lett 17(7):881–890

  • Chase JM, Leibold MA (2003) Ecological niches—linking classical and contemporary approaches. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chesson P (2000a) General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. Theor Popul Biol 58:211–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesson P, Donahue MJ, Melbourne BA, Sears ALW (2005) Scale transition theory for understanding mechanisms in metacommunities. In: Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (eds) Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 279–306

  • Colwell RK, Rangel TF (2009) Hutchinson's duality: the once and future niche. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:19651–19658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cosner C (2005) A dynamic model for the ideal-free distribution as a partial differential equation. Theor Popul Biol 67:101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cosner C, Winkler M (2014) Well-posedness and qualitative properties of a dynamical model for the ideal free distribution. J Math Biol 69:1343–1382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Courchamp F, Berec L, Gascoigne J (2008) Allee effects in ecology and conservation. Environ Conserv 36:80–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis AJ, Jenkinson LS, Lawton JH, Shorrocks B, Wood S (1998) Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming. Nature 391:783–786

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Villemereuil PB, López-Sepulcre A (2011) Consumer functional responses under intra-and inter-specific interference competition. Ecol Model 222:419–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis DL, Goldstein RA, O'Neill RV (1975) A model for tropic interaction. Ecology:881–892

  • DeAngelis D, Post WM, Travis CC (2012) Positive feedback in natural systems vol 15. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Dickie IA, Bolstridge N, Cooper JA, Peltzer DA (2010) Co-invasion by Pinus and its mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 187:475–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dieckmann U, Law R, Metz JAJ (2000) The geometry of ecological interactions: simplifying spatial complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Donahue MJ, Desharnais RA, Robles CD, Arriola P (2011) Mussel bed boundaries as dynamic equilibria: thresholds, phase shifts, and alternative states. Am Nat 178:612–625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol, Evol Syst 40:677–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman MA, Hadany L (2010) Plant-pollinator population dynamics. Theor Popul Biol 78:270–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel J-P, Saucy F, Bersier L-F (2005) Paradoxes in the logistic equation? Ecol Model 185:147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Ramos G, Sánchez-Garduño F, Maini PK (2000) Dispersal can sharpen parapatric boundaries on a spatially varying environment. Ecology 81:749–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gascoigne JC, Lipcius RN (2004) Allee effects driven by predation. J Appl Ecol 41:801–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godsoe W, Murray R, Plank MJ (2015) Information on biotic interactions improves transferability of distribution models. Am Nat 185:281–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg EE, Lande R (2007) Species' borders and dispersal barriers. Am Nat 170:297–304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves AL, Samis KE, Eckert CG (2014) Are Species' range limits simply niche limits writ large? A review of transplant experiments beyond the range. Am Nat 183:157–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirota M, Holmgren M, van Nes EH, Scheffer M (2011) Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334:232–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirzel AH, Le Lay G (2008) Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory. J Appl Ecol 45:1372–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland JN, DeAngelis DL (2009) Consumer-resource theory predicts dynamic transitions between outcomes of interspecific interactions. Ecol Lett 12:1357–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holland JN, DeAngelis DL (2010) A consumer-resource approach to the density-dependent population dynamics of mutualism. Ecology 91:1286–1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD (2009) Bringing the hutchinsonian niche into the twenty-first century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:19659–19665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Keitt TH (2000) Alternative causes for range limits: a metapopulation perspective. Ecol Lett 3:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Barfield M (2009) Trophic interactions and range limits: the diverse roles of predation. Proc R Soc B 276:1435–1442

  • Huisman G, De Boer RJ (1997) A formal derivation of the “Beddington” functional response. J Theor Biol 185:389–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutson V, Law R, Lewis D (1985) Dynamics of ecologically obligate mutualisms-effects of spatial diffusion on resilience of the interacting species. Am Nat:445–449

  • Keitt TH, Lewis MA, Holt RD (2001) Allee effects, invasion pinning, and species’ borders. Am Nat 157:203–216

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrell T, Holt RD (2005) Individual behaviour, space and predator evolution promote persistence in a two-patch system with predator switching. Evol Ecol Res 7:53–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Kot M (2001) Elements of mathematical ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Lavergne S, Mouquet N, Thuiller W, Ronce O (2010) Biodiversity and climate change: integrating evolutionary and ecological responses of species and communities. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:321–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louthan AM, Doak DF, Angert AL (2015) Where and when do species interactions set range limits? Trends Ecol Evol 30:780–792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Levins R (1964) Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 51:1207–1210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MacLean WP, Holt RD (1979) Distributional patterns in St. Croix Sphaerodactylus lizards: the taxon cycle in action. Biotropica:189–195

  • May RM (1973) Qualitative stability in model ecosystems. Ecology:638–641

  • May RM, Leonard WJ (1975) Nonlinear aspects of competition between three species. SIAM J Appl Math 29:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohgushi T, Schmitz O, Holt RD (2012) Trait-mediated indirect interactions: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oro D, Martínez-Abraín A, Paracuellos M, Nevado JC, Genovart M (2006) Influence of density dependence on predator–prey seabird interactions at large spatio-temporal scales. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 273:379–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker MA (2001) Mutualism as a constraint on invasion success for legumes and rhizobia. Divers Distrib 7:125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellmyr O (2003) Yuccas, yucca moths, and coevolution: a review. Ann Mo Bot Gard 90:35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petraitis P (2013) Multiple stable states in natural ecosystems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Pielou EC (1974) Competition on an environmental gradient. Springer

  • Pigot AL, Tobias JA (2013) Species interactions constrain geographic range expansion over evolutionary time. Ecol Lett 16:330–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam R (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML, MacArthur RH (1963) Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Am Nat:209–223

  • Samaniego H, Marquet PA (2013) Range structure analysis: unveiling the internal structure of species’ ranges. Theor Ecol 6:419–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer M (2009) Critical transitions in nature and society. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  • Sexton JP, McIntyre PJ, Angert AL, Rice KJ (2009) Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:415–436. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shurin JB, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Holt RD, Hoopes MF, Leibold MA (2004) Alternative stable states and regional community structure. J Theor Biol 227:359–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair ARE, Krebs CJ (2002) Complex numerical responses to top–down and bottom–up processes in vertebrate populations. Phil Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 357:1221–1231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Skalski GT, Gilliam JF (2001) Functional responses with predator interference: viable alternatives to the Holling type II model. Ecology 82:3083–3092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith HL, Thieme HR, Thieme HR (2011) Dynamical systems and population persistence vol 118. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Soberón J (2007) Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol Lett 10:1115–11123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soliveres S et al (2015) Intransitive competition is widespread in plant communities and maintains their species richness. Ecol Lett 18:790–798

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Staver AC, Levin SA (2012) Integrating theoretical climate and fire effects on savanna and forest systems. Am Nat 180:211–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Staver AC, Archibald S, Levin SA (2011) The global extent and determinants of savanna and Forest as alternative biome states. Science 334:230–232. doi:10.1126/science.1210465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thuiller W et al (2014) Does probability of occurrence relate to population dynamics? Ecography 37:1155–1166

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gils JA, Piersma T (2004) Digestively constrained predators evade the cost of interference competition. J Anim Ecol 73:386–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson WG, Nisbet RM (1997) Cooperation and competition along smooth environmental gradients. Ecology 78:2004–2017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisz MS et al (2013) The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling. Biol Rev 88:15–30. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00235.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Biotic Interactions Working Group at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Homeland Security, and the US Department of Agriculture through NSF Award Nos. EF-0832858 and DBI-1300426, with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Helpful comments from Rowan Sprague and two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bio-Protection Research, Centre Lincoln University, Ellesmere Junction Road/Springs Road, PO Box 85084, Lincoln, Canterbury, 7647, New Zealand

    William Godsoe

  2. Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Science and Research 2, Room 369, 4800 Calhoun Road, Houston, TX, 77204, USA

    Nathaniel J. Holland

  3. Department of Mathematics, University of Miami, 1365 Memorial Drive, Ungar 417, Coral Gables, FL, 33124, USA

    Chris Cosner

  4. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-5131, USA

    Bruce E. Kendall

  5. Hagley Community College, PO Box 3084, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand

    Angela Brett

  6. Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Jill Jankowski

  7. Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Robert D. Holt

Authors
  1. William Godsoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathaniel J. Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Cosner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruce E. Kendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Angela Brett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jill Jankowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Robert D. Holt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Godsoe.

Electronic supplementary materials

ESM 1

(PDF 724 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Godsoe, W., Holland, N.J., Cosner, C. et al. Interspecific interactions and range limits: contrasts among interaction types. Theor Ecol 10, 167–179 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-016-0319-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-016-0319-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation