Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms driving diversity in nature is an important and ongoing challenge in our changing world. To efficiently protect ecosystem diversity it is crucial to explain why and how species coexist. Over the last decades models explaining species coexistence have increased in complexity but usually don’t incorporate a detailed spatial context. However, spatial structure has been shown to affect species coexistence and habitat deterioration is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity. We therefore explore a spatially explicit two-species model and assess the effects of habitat structure on species coexistence using a wide diversity of fractal landscapes. Each species is specialized in a particular habitat type. We find that landscape structure has a major influence on the stability and constitution of a two species system and may be sufficient to explain the coexistence of two species. Well connected and highly structured habitat configurations allow spatial segregation of both species and this decreases local interspecific competition; in our model this is the most important process stabilizing coexistence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Driscoll D a, Banks SC, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB, Smith AL (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 28:605–613
Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122
Boeye J, Travis JMJ, Stoks R, Bonte D (2013) More rapid climate change promotes evolutionary rescue through selection for increased dispersal distance. Evol Appl 6:353–364
Bonin MC, Almany GR, Jones GP (2011) Contrasting effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on coral-associated reef fishes. Ecology 92:1503–1512
Bonte D, Hovestadt T, Poethke H-J (2010) Evolution of dispersal polymorphism and local adaptation of dispersal distance in spatially structured landscapes. Oikos 119:560–566
Bowers MA, Dooley JL (1991) Landscape composition and the intensity and outcome of two-species competition. Oikos 60:180–186
Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366
Chesson P, Neuhauser C (2002) Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence—comment from Chesson and Neuhauser. Trends Ecol Evol 17:529–530
Débarre F, Lenormand T (2011) Distance-limited dispersal promotes coexistence at habitat boundaries: reconsidering the competitive exclusion principle. Ecol Lett 14:260–266
Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515
Gravel D, Guichard F, Hochberg ME (2011) Species coexistence in a variable world. Ecol Lett 14:828–839
Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen JU, Jorgensen C, Mooij WM, Müller B, Pe'er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins AM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabo R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Modell 198:115–126
Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Modell 221:2760–2768
Hanski I (1995) Effect of landscape pattern on competitive interactions. In: Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (eds) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 203–224
Hanski I (2007) Spatial patterns of coexistence of competing species in patchy habitat. Theor Ecol 1:29–43
Hassell MP, Comins HN (1976) Discrete time models for two-species competition. Theor Popul Biol 9:202–221
Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (2005) Metacommunities spatial dynamics and ecological communities. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Jeltsch F, Bonte D, Pe’er G, Reineking B, Leimgruber P, Balkenhol N, Schröder B, Buchmann CM, Mueller T, Blaum N, Zurell D, Böhning-Gaese K, Wiegand T, Eccard JA, Hofer H, Reeg J, Eggers U, Bauer S (2013) Integrating movement ecology with biodiversity research—exploring new avenues to address spatiotemporal biodiversity dynamics. Mov Ecol 1:6
Kubisch A, Poethke H-J, Hovestadt T (2011) Density-dependent dispersal and the formation of range borders. Ecography (Cop) 34:1002–1008
Levin SA (1974) Dispersion and population interactions. Am Nat 108:207–228
Lotka AJ (1932) The growth of mixed populations: two species competing for a common food supply. J Washington Acad Sci 22:461–469
McInerny G, Travis JMJ, Dytham C (2007) Range shifting on a fragmented landscape. Ecol Inform 2:1–8
Miller GSP (1986) The definition and rendering of terrain maps. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 20:39–48
Murrell DJ, Purves DW, Law R (2001) Uniting pattern and process in plant ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 16:529–530
Murrell D, Purves D, Law R (2002) Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence—response from Murrell, Purves and Law. Trends Ecol Evol 17:211
Neuhauser C, Pacala SW (1999) An explicitly spatial version of the Lotka-Volterra model with interspecific competition. Ann Appl Probab 9:1226–1259
Nicholson AJ (1933) The balance of animal populations. J Anim Ecol 2:132–178
Pacala SW, Tilman D (1994) Limiting similarity in mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in heterogeneous environments. Am Nat 143:222–257
Rejmanek M (2002) Intraspecific aggregation and species coexistence. Trends Ecol Evol 17:209–210
Remer LC, Heard SB (1998) Local movement and edge effects on competition and coexistence in ephemeral-patch models. Am Nat 152:896–904
Snyder RE (2008) When does environmental variation most influence species coexistence? Theor Ecol 1:129–139
Snyder RE, Chesson P (2003) Local dispersal can facilitate coexistence in the presence of permanent spatial heterogeneity. Ecol Lett 6:301–309
Snyder RE, Chesson P (2004) How the spatial scales of dispersal, competition, and environmental heterogeneity interact to affect coexistence. Am Nat 164:633–650
Travis JMJ, Dytham C (2002) Dispersal evolution during invasions. Evol Ecol 4:1119–1129
Volterra V (1926) Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali conviventi. Mem R Accad Naz dei Lincei 6:31–113
Wassmuth BE, Stoll P, Tscharntke T, Thies C (2009) Spatial aggregation facilitates coexistence and diversity of wild plant species in field margins. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 11:127–135
Wiegand T, Moloney KA, Naves J, Knauer F (1999) Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective. Am Nat 154:605–627
Yaacobi G, Ziv Y, Rosenzweig ML (2007) Habitat fragmentation may not matter to species diversity. Proc R Soc B 274:2409–2412
Zhang F, Li Z, Hui C (2006) Spatiotemporal dynamics and distribution patterns of cyclic competition in metapopulation. Ecol Modell 193:721–735
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by FWO project G.0610.11 to DB and JB. DB is supported by the FWO Research Network EVENET and the BelSpo IAP project Speedy. AK is supported by a grant from the German science foundation (HO 2051/3-1). This is publication ISEM-2014-032 of the Institute des Sciences de l’Evolution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boeye, J., Kubisch, A. & Bonte, D. Habitat structure mediates spatial segregation and therefore coexistence. Landscape Ecol 29, 593–604 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0010-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0010-6