Priority effect

Last updated

In ecology, a priority effect refers to the impact that a particular species can have on community development as a result of its prior arrival at a site. [1] [2] [3] There are two basic types of priority effects: inhibitory and facilitative. An inhibitory priority effect occurs when a species that arrives first at a site negatively affects a species that arrives later by reducing the availability of space or resources. In contrast, a facilitative priority effect occurs when a species that arrives first at a site alters abiotic or biotic conditions in ways that positively affect a species that arrives later. [3] [4] Inhibitory priority effects have been documented more frequently than facilitative priority effects.[ citation needed ] Studies indicate that both abiotic (e.g. resource availability) and biotic (e.g. predation) factors can affect the strength of priority effects.[ citation needed ] Priority effects are a central and pervasive element of ecological community development that have significant implications for natural systems and ecological restoration efforts. [3] [5] [ citation needed ]

Contents

Theoretical foundation

Community succession theory

Early in the 20th century, Frederic Clements and other plant ecologists suggested that ecological communities develop in a linear, directional manner towards a final, stable endpoint: the climax community. [3] Clements indicated that a site's climax community would reflect local climate. He conceptualized the climax community as a "superorganism" that followed a defined developmental sequence. [2]

Early ecological succession theory maintained that the directional shifts from one stage of succession to the next were induced by the plants themselves. [1] In this sense, succession theory implicitly recognized priority effects; the prior arrival of certain species had important impacts on future community composition. At the same time, the climax concept implied that species shifts were predetermined. This implies that a given species would always appear at the same point during the development of the climax community and have a predictable impact on community development.

This static view of priority effects remained essentially unchanged by the concept of patch dynamics, introduced by Alex Watt in 1947. [4] Watt conceived of plant communities as dynamic "mechanisms" that followed predetermined succession cycles. He viewed succession as a process driven by facilitation, in which each species made local conditions more suitable for another species.

Individualistic approach

In 1926, Henry Gleason presented an alternative hypothesis in which plants were conceptualized as individuals rather than components of a superorganism. [5] This hypothesis suggested that the distribution of various species across the landscape reflected species-specific dispersal limitations and environmental requirements rather than predetermined associations among species. Gleason contested the idea of a predetermined climax community, recognizing that different colonizing species could produce alternative trajectories of community development. For example, initially identical ponds colonized by different species could develop through succession into very different communities.

The Initial Floristic Composition model was put forward by Frank Egler to describe community development in abandoned agricultural fields. [6] According to this model, the set of species present in a field immediately after abandonment had strong influences on community development and final community composition. [7]

Alternative stable states

In the 1970s, it was suggested that natural communities could be characterized by multiple or alternative stable states. [8] [9] [10] Multiple stable state models suggested that the same environment could support several combinations of species. [5] [6] Theorists argued that historical context could play a central role in determining which stable state would be present at any given time. Robert May explained, "If there is a unique stable state, historical accidents are unimportant; if there are many alternative locally stable states, historical accidents can be of overriding significance." [10]

Community assembly theory

Assembly theory explains community development processes in the context of multiple stable states: it asks why a particular type of community developed when other stable community types are possible. In contrast to succession theory, assembly theory was developed largely by animal ecologists and explicitly incorporated historical context. [7]

In 1975, Jared Diamond [11] developed quantitative "assembly rules" to predict avian community composition on an archipelago. This approach emphasizes historical contingency and multiple stable states. Although the idea of deterministic community assembly initially drew criticism, [12] the approach continued to gain support. [10] [13] In 1991, Drake used an assembly model to demonstrate that different community types result from different sequences of species invasions. [14] In this model, early invaders have major impacts on the invasion success of species that arrive later. Other modelling studies suggested that priority effects may be especially important when invasion frequency is low enough to allow species to become established before replacement, [15] or when other factors that could drive assembly (e.g., competition, abiotic stress) are relatively unimportant. [16]

In a 1999 review, Belyea and Lancaster described three basic determinants of community assembly: dispersal constraints, environmental constraints, and internal dynamics. [17] They identified priority effects as a manifestation of the interaction between dispersal constraints and internal dynamics.

Empirical evidence

Although early research focused on animals and aquatic systems, more recent[ when? ] studies have begun to examine terrestrial and plant-based priority effects.

Marine

Most of the earliest empirical evidence for priority effects came from studies on aquatic animals. Sutherland (1974) found that final community composition varied depending on the initial order of larval recruitment in a community of small marine organisms (sponges, tunicates, hydroids, and other species). [18] Shulman (1983) found strong priority effects among coral reef fish. [19] The study found that prior establishment by a territorial damselfish reduced establishment rates of other fish. The authors also identified cross-trophic priority effects; prior establishment by a predator fish reduced establishment rates of prey fishes.

In the late 1980s, several studies examined priority effects in marine microcosms. Robinson and Dickerson (1987) found that priority effects were important in some cases, but suggested, "Being the first to invade a habitat does not guarantee success; there must be sufficient time for the early colonist to increase its population size for it to pre-empt further colonization." [20] Robinson and Edgemon (1988) later developed 54 communities of phytoplankton species by varying invasion order, rate, and timing. They found that although invasion order (priority effects) could explain a small fraction of the resulting variation in community composition, most of the variation was explained by changes in invasion rate and invasion timing. [21] These studies indicate that priority effects may not be the only or the most important historical factor affecting the trajectory of community development.

In a striking example of cross-trophic priority effects, Hart (1992) found that priority effects explain the maintenance of two alternate stable states in stream ecosystems. While a macroalga is dominant in some patches, sessile grazers maintain a "lawn" of small microalgae in others. If the sessile grazers colonize a patch first, they exclude the macroalga, and vice versa. [22]

Amphibian

In two of the most commonly cited empirical studies on priority effects, Alford and Wilbur documented inhibitory and facilitative priority effects among toad larvae in experimental ponds. [23] [24] They found that hatchlings of a toad species ( Bufo americanus ) exhibited higher growth and survivorship when introduced to a pond before those of a frog species ( Rana sphenocephala ). The frog larvae, however, did best when introduced after the toad larvae. Thus, prior establishment by the toad species facilitated the frog species, while prior establishment by the frog species inhibited the toad species. Studies on tree frogs have also documented both types of priority effects. [25] [26] Morin (1987) also observed that priority effects became less important in the presence of a predatory salamander. He hypothesized that predation mediated priority effects by reducing competition between frog species. [25] Studies on larval insects and frogs in water-filled tree holes and stumps found that abiotic factors such as space, resource availability, and toxin levels can also be important in mediating priority effects. [27] [28]

Terrestrial

Terrestrial studies on priority effects are rare, with most studies focusing on arthropods or grassland plant species. In a lab experiment, Shorrocks and Bingley (1994) showed that prior arrival increased survivorship for two species of fruit flies; each fly species had inhibitory impacts on the other. [29] A 1996 field study on desert spiders by Ehmann and MacMahon showed that the presence of species from one spider guild reduced establishment of spiders from a different guild. [30] Palmer (2003) demonstrated that priority effects allowed a competitively subordinate ant species to avoid exclusion by a competitively dominant species. [31] If the competitively subordinate ants were able to colonize first, they altered their host tree’s morphology in ways that made it less suitable for other ant species. This study was especially important because it was able to identify a mechanism driving observed priority effects.

A study on two species of introduced grasses in Hawaiian woodlands found that the species with inferior competitive abilities may be able to persist through priority effects. [32] At least three studies have come to similar conclusions about the coexistence of native and exotic grasses in California grassland ecosystems. [33] [34] [35] If given time to establish, native species can successfully inhibit the establishment of exotics. The authors of the various studies attributed the prevalence of exotic grasses in California to the low seed production and relatively poor dispersal ability of native species.

Emerging concepts

Long-term implications: convergence and divergence

Although many studies have documented priority effects, the persistence of these effects over time often remains unclear. Young (2001) indicated that both convergence (in which "communities proceed towards a pre-disturbance state regardless of historical conditions") and divergence (in which historical factors continue to affect the long-term trajectory of community development) are present in nature. [7] Among studies of priority effects, both trends seem to have been observed. [36] [22] Fukami (2005) argued that a community could be both convergent and divergent at different levels of community organization. The authors studied experimentally assembled plant communities and found that while the identities of individual species remained unique across different community replicates, species traits generally became more similar. [37]

Trophic ecology

Some studies indicate that priority effects can occur across guilds [30] or trophic levels. [22] Such priority effects could have dramatic impacts on community composition and food web structure. Even intra-guild priority effects could have important consequences at multiple trophic levels if the affected species are associated with unique predator or prey species. Consider, for example, a plant species that is eaten by a host-specific herbivore. Priority effects that influence the ability of the plant species to establish would indirectly affect the establishment success of the associated herbivore. Theoretical models have described cyclical assembly dynamics in which species associated with different suites of predators can repeatedly replace one another. [38] [39]

Intra-specific aggregation

In situations where two species are introduced at the same time, spatial aggregation of a species' propagules could cause priority effects by initially reducing interspecific competition. [40] Aggregation during recruitment and establishment could allow inferior competitors to coexist with or even displace competitive dominants over the long-term. Several modelling efforts have begun to examine the implications of spatial priority effects for species coexistence. [29] [41] [42] [43]

Mechanisms and new organisms

A few studies have begun to explore the mechanisms driving observed priority effects. [31] Moreover, although past studies focused on a small subset of species, recent papers indicate that priority effects may be important for a wide range of organisms, including fungi, [44] [45] birds, [46] lizards, [47] and salamanders. [48]

Ecological restoration

Priority effects have important implications for ecological restoration. In many systems, information about priority effects can help practitioners identify cost-effective strategies for improving the survival and persistence of certain species, especially species of inferior competitive ability. [36] [49] [50] For example, in a study on the restoration of native Californian grasses and forbs, Lulow (2004) found that forbs could not establish in plots where bunchgrasses had been previously planted. When bunchgrasses were added to plots where forbs had already been growing for a year, forbs were able to coexist with grasses for at least 3–4 years. [36]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecology</span> Study of organisms and their environment

Ecology is the natural science of the relationships among living organisms, including humans, and their physical environment. Ecology considers organisms at the individual, population, community, ecosystem, and biosphere level. Ecology overlaps with the closely related sciences of biogeography, evolutionary biology, genetics, ethology, and natural history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keystone species</span> Species with a large effect on its environment

A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its natural environment relative to its abundance, a concept introduced in 1969 by the zoologist Robert T. Paine. Keystone species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other species in the community. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. Some keystone species, such as the wolf, are also apex predators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biological interaction</span> Effect that organisms have on other organisms

In ecology, a biological interaction is the effect that a pair of organisms living together in a community have on each other. They can be either of the same species, or of different species. These effects may be short-term, or long-term, both often strongly influence the adaptation and evolution of the species involved. Biological interactions range from mutualism, beneficial to both partners, to competition, harmful to both partners. Interactions can be direct when physical contact is established or indirect, through intermediaries such as shared resources, territories, ecological services, metabolic waste, toxins or growth inhibitors. This type of relationship can be shown by net effect based on individual effects on both organisms arising out of relationship.

The diversity of species and genes in ecological communities affects the functioning of these communities. These ecological effects of biodiversity in turn are affected by both climate change through enhanced greenhouse gases, aerosols and loss of land cover, and biological diversity, causing a rapid loss of biodiversity and extinctions of species and local populations. The current rate of extinction is sometimes considered a mass extinction, with current species extinction rates on the order of 100 to 1000 times as high as in the past.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intermediate disturbance hypothesis</span> Model proposing regional biodiversity is increased by a moderate level of ecological disturbance

The intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH) suggests that local species diversity is maximized when ecological disturbance is neither too rare nor too frequent. At low levels of disturbance, more competitive organisms will push subordinate species to extinction and dominate the ecosystem. At high levels of disturbance, due to frequent forest fires or human impacts like deforestation, all species are at risk of going extinct. According to IDH theory, at intermediate levels of disturbance, diversity is thus maximized because species that thrive at both early and late successional stages can coexist. IDH is a nonequilibrium model used to describe the relationship between disturbance and species diversity. IDH is based on the following premises: First, ecological disturbances have major effects on species richness within the area of disturbance. Second, interspecific competition results in one species driving a competitor to extinction and becoming dominant in the ecosystem. Third, moderate ecological scale disturbances prevent interspecific competition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latitudinal gradients in species diversity</span> Global increase in species richness from polar regions to tropics

Species richness, or biodiversity, increases from the poles to the tropics for a wide variety of terrestrial and marine organisms, often referred to as the latitudinal diversity gradient. The latitudinal diversity gradient is one of the most widely recognized patterns in ecology. It has been observed to varying degrees in Earth's past. A parallel trend has been found with elevation, though this is less well-studied.

Ecological traps are scenarios in which rapid environmental change leads organisms to prefer to settle in poor-quality habitats. The concept stems from the idea that organisms that are actively selecting habitat must rely on environmental cues to help them identify high-quality habitat. If either the habitat quality or the cue changes so that one does not reliably indicate the other, organisms may be lured into poor-quality habitat.

<i>Cortaderia jubata</i> Species of plant

Cortaderia jubata is a species of grass known by several common names, including purple pampas grass and Andean pampas grass. It is similar to its more widespread relative, the pampas grass C. selloana, but it can get quite a bit taller, approaching seven meters in height at maximum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dominance (ecology)</span> Measure of species ecological influence

Ecological dominance is the degree to which one or several species have a major influence controlling the other species in their ecological community or make up more of the biomass. Both the composition and abundance of species within an ecosystem can be affected by the dominant species present.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Argentine ant</span> Species of ant

The Argentine ant is an ant native to northern Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and southern Brazil. This invasive species was inadvertently introduced by humans on a global scale and has become established in many Mediterranean climate areas, including South Africa, New Zealand, Japan, Easter Island, Australia, the Azores, Europe, Hawaii, and the continental United States. Argentine ants are significant pests within agricultural and urban settings, and are documented to cause substantial harm to communities of native arthropods, vertebrates, and plants within their invaded range.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological fitting</span> Biological process

Ecological fitting is "the process whereby organisms colonize and persist in novel environments, use novel resources or form novel associations with other species as a result of the suites of traits that they carry at the time they encounter the novel condition". It can be understood as a situation in which a species' interactions with its biotic and abiotic environment seem to indicate a history of coevolution, when in actuality the relevant traits evolved in response to a different set of biotic and abiotic conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plant use of endophytic fungi in defense</span>

Plant use of endophytic fungi in defense occurs when endophytic fungi, which live symbiotically with the majority of plants by entering their cells, are utilized as an indirect defense against herbivores. In exchange for carbohydrate energy resources, the fungus provides benefits to the plant which can include increased water or nutrient uptake and protection from phytophagous insects, birds or mammals. Once associated, the fungi alter nutrient content of the plant and enhance or begin production of secondary metabolites. The change in chemical composition acts to deter herbivory by insects, grazing by ungulates and/or oviposition by adult insects. Endophyte-mediated defense can also be effective against pathogens and non-herbivory damage.

Flowering synchrony is the amount of overlap between flowering periods of plants in their mating season compared to what would be expected to occur randomly under given environmental conditions. A population which is flowering synchronously has more plants flowering at the same time than would be expected to occur randomly. A population which is flowering asynchronously has fewer plants flowering at the same time than would be expected randomly. Flowering synchrony can describe synchrony of flowering periods within a year, across years, and across species in a community. There are fitness benefits and disadvantages to synchronized flowering, and it is a widespread phenomenon across pollination syndromes.

Naomi Cappuccino is an associate professor of biology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Her research primarily focuses on population ecology and biological control of invasive species.

The enemy release hypothesis is among the most widely proposed explanations for the dominance of exotic invasive species. In its native range, a species has co-evolved with pathogens, parasites and predators that limit its population. When it arrives in a new territory, it leaves these old enemies behind, while those in its introduced range are less effective at constraining them. The result is sometimes rampant growth that threatens native species and ecosystems.

Herbivores' effects on plant diversity vary across environmental changes. Herbivores could increase plant diversity or decrease plant diversity. Loss of plant diversity due to climate change can also affect herbivore and plant community relationships

Tadashi Fukami is an associate Professor of Biology and community ecologist at Stanford University. He is currently the head of Fukami Lab which is a community ecology research group that focuses on "historical contingency in the assembly of ecological communities." Fukami is an elected Fellow of the Ecological Society of America.

The Hynes Award for New Investigators is awarded by the Society for Freshwater Science and recognizes an excellent academic research paper in the freshwater sciences by a scientist less than five years after their terminal graduate degree. Recipients of the award have gone on to become leading senior researchers, serving as science advisors to various governments and states, and held leadership positions in national and international scientific societies.

Jessica Gurevitch is a plant ecologist known for meta-analysis in the fields of ecology and evolution.

Carol Anne Blanchette is research biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara who is known for her work on marine intertidal zones and the biomechanics of marine organisms.

References

  1. 1 2 Tansley, A. G. (July 1935). "The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms" (PDF). Ecology. 16 (3): 284–307. doi:10.2307/1930070. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1930070. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-26.
  2. 1 2 Clements, Frederic Edward (1916). Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Clements, Frederic E. (February 1936). "Nature and Structure of the Climax" (PDF). The Journal of Ecology. 24 (1): 252–284. doi:10.2307/2256278. ISSN   0022-0477. JSTOR   2256278.
  4. 1 2 Watt, Alex S. (December 1947). "Pattern and Process in the Plant Community" (PDF). The Journal of Ecology. 35 (1/2): 1–22. doi:10.2307/2256497. ISSN   0022-0477. JSTOR   2256497.
  5. 1 2 3 Gleason, H. A. (January 1926). "The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association" (PDF). Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 53 (1): 7–26. doi:10.2307/2479933. ISSN   0040-9618. JSTOR   2479933. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-04-29. Retrieved 2014-04-28.
  6. 1 2 Egler, Frank E. (1954-11-01). "Vegetation science concepts I. Initial floristic composition, a factor in old-field vegetation development with 2 figs". Vegetatio. 4 (6): 412–417. doi:10.1007/BF00275587. ISSN   1573-5052. S2CID   44573990.
  7. 1 2 3 Young, Truman P.; Chase, Jonathan M.; Huddleston, Russell T. (2001-03-20). "Community Succession and Assembly Comparing, Contrasting and Combining Paradigms in the Context of" (PDF). Ecological Restoration. 19 (1): 5–18. doi:10.3368/er.19.1.5. ISSN   1543-4079. S2CID   16235361.
  8. ↑ Lewontin, R C (1969). "The meaning of stability". Brookhaven Symposia in Biology. 22: 13–24. ISSN   0068-2799. PMID   5372787.
  9. ↑ Holling, Crawford S (1973). "Resilience and stability of ecological systems" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4: 1–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245. ISSN   0066-4162. JSTOR   2096802. S2CID   53309505.
  10. 1 2 3 May, Robert M (1977). "Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states". Nature. 269 (5628): 471–477. Bibcode:1977Natur.269..471M. doi:10.1038/269471a0. S2CID   4283750.
  11. ↑ Diamond, Jared M. (1975-01-01). "Assembly of species communities" . In Cody, Martin L.; Diamond, Jared M. (eds.). Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard University Press. pp.  342–444. ISBN   9780674224445.
  12. ↑ Connor, Edward F.; Simberloff, Daniel (December 1979). "The Assembly of Species Communities: Chance or Competition?". Ecology. 60 (6): 1132. doi:10.2307/1936961. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1936961.
  13. ↑ Hughes, Terence P. (February 1989). "Community Structure and Diversity of Coral Reefs: The Role of History" (PDF). Ecology. 70 (1): 275–279. doi:10.2307/1938434. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1938434.
  14. ↑ Drake, James A (1991). "Community-assembly mechanics and the structure of an experimental species ensemble". American Naturalist. 137 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1086/285143. ISSN   0003-0147. JSTOR   2462154. S2CID   53478943.
  15. ↑ Lockwood, Julie L.; Powell, Robert D.; Nott, M. Philip; Pimm, Stuart L. (December 1997). "Assembling Ecological Communities in Time and Space". Oikos. 80 (3): 549. doi:10.2307/3546628. ISSN   0030-1299. JSTOR   3546628.
  16. ↑ Weiher, E.; Keddy, P. A. (1995). "Assembly rules, null models, and trait dispersion: new questions front old patterns". Oikos. 74 (1): 159–164. doi:10.2307/3545686. JSTOR   3545686.
  17. ↑ Belyea, Lisa R.; Lancaster, Jill (September 1999). "Assembly Rules within a Contingent Ecology". Oikos. 86 (3): 402. doi:10.2307/3546646. ISSN   0030-1299. JSTOR   3546646.
  18. ↑ Sutherland, John P (1974). "Multiple stable points in natural communities". American Naturalist. 108 (964): 859–873. doi:10.1086/282961. ISSN   0003-0147. JSTOR   2459615. S2CID   85014132.
  19. ↑ Shulman, Myra J.; Ogden, John C.; Ebersole, John P.; McFarland, William N.; Miller, Steven L.; Wolf, Nancy G. (1983-12-01). "Priority Effects in the Recruitment of Juvenile Coral Reef Fishes". Ecology. 64 (6): 1508–1513. doi:10.2307/1937505. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1937505.
  20. ↑ Robinson, James F.; Dickerson, Jaime E. (1987-06-01). "Does Invasion Sequence Affect Community Structure?". Ecology. 68 (3): 587–595. doi:10.2307/1938464. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1938464.
  21. ↑ Robinson, James V.; Edgemon, Michael A. (October 1988). "An Experimental Evaluation of the Effect of Invasion History on Community Structure". Ecology. 69 (5): 1410–1417. doi:10.2307/1941638. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1941638.
  22. 1 2 3 Hart, David D. (1992-08-01). "Community organization in streams: the importance of species interactions, physical factors, and chance" (PDF). Oecologia. 91 (2): 220–228. Bibcode:1992Oecol..91..220H. doi:10.1007/BF00317787. ISSN   1432-1939. PMID   28313460. S2CID   206774636.
  23. ↑ Alford, Ross A.; Wilbur, Henry M. (1985-08-01). "Priority Effects in Experimental Pond Communities: Competition between Bufo and Rana". Ecology. 66 (4): 1097–1105. doi:10.2307/1939161. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1939161.
  24. ↑ Wilbur, Henry M.; Alford, Ross A. (August 1985). "Priority Effects in Experimental Pond Communities: Responses of Hyla to Bufo and Rana". Ecology. 66 (4): 1106–1114. doi:10.2307/1939162. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1939162.
  25. 1 2 Morin, Peter Jay (1987-06-01). "Predation, Breeding Asynchrony, and the Outcome of Competition Among Treefrog Tadpoles". Ecology. 68 (3): 675–683. doi:10.2307/1938473. ISSN   0012-9658. JSTOR   1938473.
  26. ↑ Warner, Susan C.; Dunson, William A.; Travis, Joseph (1991-11-01). "Interaction of pH, density, and priority effects on the survivorship and growth of two species of hylid tadpoles". Oecologia. 88 (3): 331–339. Bibcode:1991Oecol..88..331W. doi:10.1007/BF00317575. ISSN   1432-1939. PMID   28313793. S2CID   19276988.
  27. ↑ Fincke, OlA. M. (1999-02-01). "Organization of predator assemblages in Neotropical tree holes: effects of abiotic factors and priority". Ecological Entomology. 24 (1): 13–23. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.1999.00166.x. ISSN   1365-2311. S2CID   84330573.
  28. ↑ Sunahara, Toshihiko; Mogi, Motoyoshi (2002-06-01). "Priority effects of bamboo-stump mosquito larvae: influences of water exchange and leaf litter input". Ecological Entomology. 27 (3): 346–354. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00417.x. ISSN   1365-2311. S2CID   85188993.
  29. 1 2 Shorrocks, B.; Bingley, M. (1994). "Priority effects and species coexistence: experiments with fungal-breeding Drosophila". Journal of Animal Ecology. 63 (4): 799–806. doi:10.2307/5257. ISSN   0021-8790. JSTOR   5257.
  30. 1 2 Ehmann, William J; MacMahon, James A (1996). "Initial tests for priority effects among spiders that co-occur on sagebrush shrubs". Journal of Arachnology. 24 (3): 173–185. ISSN   0161-8202.
  31. 1 2 Palmer, Todd M.; Stanton, Maureen L.; Young, Truman P. (October 2003). "Competition and Coexistence: Exploring Mechanisms That Restrict and Maintain Diversity within Mutualist Guilds". The American Naturalist. 162 (s4): S63–S79. doi:10.1086/378682. ISSN   1537-5323. JSTOR   10.1086/378682. PMID   14583858. S2CID   28047182.
  32. ↑ D'Antonio, Carla M.; Hughes, R. Flint; Vitousek, Peter M. (2001-01-01). "Factors Influencing Dynamics of two Invasive C4 Grasses in Seasonally Dry Hawaiian Woodlands". Ecology. 82 (1): 89–104. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0089:FIDOTI]2.0.CO;2. ISSN   0012-9658.
  33. ↑ Seabloom, Eric W.; Harpole, W. Stanley; Reichman, O. J.; Tilman, David (2003-11-11). "Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native California grassland species". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (23): 13384–13389. Bibcode:2003PNAS..10013384S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1835728100 . ISSN   1091-6490. PMC   263823 . PMID   14595028.
  34. ↑ Corbin, Jeffrey D.; D'Antonio, Carla M. (2004-05-01). "Competition Between Native Perennial and Exotic Annual Grasses: Implications for a Historical Invasion" (PDF). Ecology. 85 (5): 1273–1283. doi:10.1890/02-0744. ISSN   0012-9658.
  35. ↑ Lulow, Megan E. (2006-12-01). "Invasion by Non-Native Annual Grasses: The Importance of Species Biomass, Composition, and Time Among California Native Grasses of the Central Valley" (PDF). Restoration Ecology. 14 (4): 616–626. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00173.x. ISSN   1526-100X. S2CID   12460270.
  36. 1 2 3 Lulow, Megan Elizabeth (2004). Restoration of California's Inland Grasslands: The Role of Priority Effects and Management Strategies in Establishing Native Communities and the Ability of Native Grasses to Resist Invasion by Non-native Grasses (Ph.D.). University of California, Davis.
  37. ↑ Fukami, Tadashi; Martijn Bezemer, T.; Mortimer, Simon R.; van der Putten, Wim H. (2005-12-01). "Species divergence and trait convergence in experimental plant community assembly" (PDF). Ecology Letters. 8 (12): 1283–1290. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00829.x. ISSN   1461-0248.
  38. ↑ Leibold, M. A.; Holyoak, M.; Mouquet, N.; Amarasekare, P.; Chase, J. M.; Hoopes, M. F.; Holt, R. D.; Shurin, J. B.; Law, R.; Tilman, D.; Loreau, M.; Gonzalez, A. (2004-07-01). "The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology". Ecology Letters. 7 (7): 601–613. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00608.x. ISSN   1461-0248.
  39. ↑ Steiner, Christopher F.; Leibold, Mathew A. (2004-01-01). "Cyclic assembly trajectories and scale-dependent productivity–diversity relationships" (PDF). Ecology. 85 (1): 107–113. doi:10.1890/03-3010. ISSN   0012-9658.
  40. ↑ Inouye, Brian D. (1999-01-01). "Integrating nested spatial scales: implications for the coexistence of competitors on a patchy resource". Journal of Animal Ecology. 68 (1): 150–162. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00272.x . ISSN   1365-2656.
  41. ↑ Chesson, Peter (2000). "Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31 (1): 343–366. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343. S2CID   403954.
  42. ↑ Hartley, Stephen; Shorrocks, Bryan (2002-07-01). "A general framework for the aggregation model of coexistence". Journal of Animal Ecology. 71 (4): 651–662. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00628.x . ISSN   1365-2656.
  43. ↑ Molofsky, Jane; Bever, James D. (2002-12-07). "A novel theory to explain species diversity in landscapes: positive frequency dependence and habitat suitability". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 269 (1508): 2389–2393. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2164. ISSN   1471-2954. PMC   1691177 . PMID   12495479.
  44. ↑ Kennedy, Peter G.; Bruns, Thomas D. (2005-05-01). "Priority effects determine the outcome of ectomycorrhizal competition between two Rhizopogon species colonizing Pinus muricata seedlings". New Phytologist. 166 (2): 631–638. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01355.x . ISSN   1469-8137. PMID   15819925.
  45. ↑ Rohlfs, Marko (2005-09-01). "Density-dependent insect-mold interactions: effects on fungal growth and spore production". Mycologia. 97 (5): 996–1001. doi:10.3852/mycologia.97.5.996. ISSN   1557-2536. PMID   16596951.
  46. ↑ Gamarra, Javier G. P.; Montoya, José M.; Alonso, David; Solé, Ricard V. (2005-03-01). "Competition and introduction regime shape exotic bird communities in Hawaii". Biological Invasions. 7 (2): 297–307. doi:10.1007/s10530-004-0876-3. ISSN   1573-1464. S2CID   23347191.
  47. ↑ M'Closkey, Robert T.; Hecnar, Stephen J.; Chalcraft, David R.; Cotter, Jill E. (1998-10-01). "Size distributions and sex ratios of colonizing lizards". Oecologia. 116 (4): 501–509. Bibcode:1998Oecol.116..501M. doi:10.1007/s004420050615. ISSN   1432-1939. PMID   28307519. S2CID   23042707.
  48. ↑ Eitam, Avi; Blaustein, Leon; Mangel, Marc (2005-11-01). "Density and intercohort priority effects on larval Salamandra salamandra in temporary pools". Oecologia. 146 (1): 36–42. Bibcode:2005Oecol.146...36E. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.118.8240 . doi:10.1007/s00442-005-0185-2. ISSN   0029-8549. PMID   16133198. S2CID   14645093.
  49. ↑ Young, T. P.; Petersen, D. A.; Clary, J. J. (2005-06-01). "The ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms" (PDF). Ecology Letters. 8 (6): 662–673. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00764.x . ISSN   1461-0248.
  50. ↑ Suding, Katharine N.; Gross, Katherine L.; Houseman, Gregory R. (2004-01-01). "Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology" (PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 19 (1): 46–53. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.005. ISSN   0169-5347. PMID   16701225. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-04-29. Retrieved 2014-04-28.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.