What do we mean when we talk about the niche?

The niche concept is a good example of an idea in ecology that is continually changing. It is probably the most important idea in ecology that no one has yet nailed down. As most histories of the niche mention, the niche has developed from its first mention by Grinnell (in 1917) to Hutchinson’s multi-dimensional niche space, to mechanistic descriptions of resource usage and R*s (from MacArthur’s warblers to Tilman’s algae). Its most recent incarnation can be found in what has been called modern coexistence theory, as first proposed by Peter Chesson in his seminal 2000 paper.

Chesson’s mathematical framework has come to dominate a lot of discussion amongst community ecologists, with good reason. It provides a clear way to understand stable coexistence amongst local populations in terms of their ability to recover from low densities, and further by noting that those low density growth rates are the outcome of two types of processes: those driven by fitness differences and those driven by stabilizing effects that reduce interspecific competition relative to intraspecific competition. Many of the different specific mechanisms of coexistence can be classified in terms of this framework of equalizing and stabilizing effects. “Niche” differences between species in this framework can be defined as those differences that increase negative intraspecific density dependence compared to interspecific effects. If, as a simplistic example, two plant species have different rooting depths and so access different depths of the water table, then this increases competition for water between similar root-depth conspecifics relative to interspecific competition. Thus, this is a niche difference. Extensions on modern niche theory have offered insights into everything from invasion success, restoration, and eco-phylogenetic analyses.

But it seems as though the rise of 'modern coexistence theory' is changing the language that ecologists use to discuss the niche concept. When Thomas Kuhn talks about paradigm shifts, he notes that it is not only theory that changes but also the worldview organized around a given idea. At least amongst community ecologists, it seems as though this had focused the discussion of the niche to an increasingly local scale, particularly in terms of stabilizing and equalizing terms measured as fixed quantities made under homogenous, local conditions. A recognition of the role of spatial and temporal conditions in altering these variables seems less common, compared to the direction of earlier, Hutchinsonian-type discussions of the niche.

Note that this was not Chesson's original definition, since he is explicit that: “The theoretical literature supports the concept that stable coexistence necessarily requires important ecological differences between species that we may think of as distinguishing their niches and that often involve tradeoffs, as discussed above. For the purpose of this review, niche space is conceived as having four axes: resources, predators (and other natural enemies), time, and space.”

On a recent manuscript, an editor commented that the term 'niche processes' shouldn't be used to refer to environmental filtering since (paraphrased) “when ecologists refer to niche processes, they are usually thinking of processes that constrain species’ abundances locally, confer an advantage on rare species...” But is it fair to say that this is the only thing we mean (or should mean) when we discuss niches? I’ve had discussions with other people who’ve had this kind of response – e.g., reviewers asking for simulations to be reframed from niches defined in terms of environmental tolerances to things that fit more clearly into equalizing and stabilizing terms. That is a good description of a stabilizing process, which is termed a 'niche difference' in the modern coexistence literature. But there is still a lot of grey space we have yet to address in terms of how to integrate (e.g.) the effects of the environment (including over larger scales) into local 'niche processes' or stabilizing effects. It's a subtle argument - that we can use the framework established by Chesson, but we should try to do so without dismissing too-quickly the concepts that don't fit easily within it. In addition, elsewhere the niche is still conceptualized in varying ways from comparative evolutionary biologists who talk about niche conservatism and mean the maintenance of ancestral trait values or environmental tolerances; to functional ecologists who may refer to multidimensional differences in trait space; to species distribution modellers who thinks of large-scale environmental correlates or physiological determinants of species’ distributions. 

The niche is probably the most fundamental, yet vaguely–defined and poorly understood idea in ecology. So, formalizing the definition and constraining it is a necessary idea. And modern coexistence theory has provided great deal of insight into local coexistence and thus has allowed for a better understanding of the niche concept. But there is also a need to be careful in how quickly and how much we restrict our discussion of the niche. It's possible to gain both the strengths of modern coexistence theory as well as appreciate its current limitations. Modern coexistence theory isn’t yet complete or sufficient. It’s currently easier to estimate stabilizing and equalizing terms from experimental data in which conditions are controlled and homogenous, and this can inadvertently focus future research and discussion on those types of conditions. Models which consider larger scale processes and the impacts of changing abiotic conditions through space in time exist, but across different literatures, and these need continued synthesis. There is still a need to understand how to most realistically incorporating and understand the complex interactions between multiple species (e.g. Levine et al. 2017). The application of modern coexistence theory to observational data in particular is still limited, and such data is essential when species are slow lived or experimentally unwieldy. Further, when quantities of interest (particularly traits or phylogenetic differences) contribute to both equalizing and stabilizing effects, its still not clear how to partition their contributions meaningfully.

-->

Experimental macroevolution at microscales

Sometimes I find myself defending the value of microcosms and model organisms for ecological research. Research systems do not always have to involve a perfect mimicry of nature to provide useful information. A new paper in Evolution is a great example of how microcosms provide information that may not be accessible in any other system, making them a valuable tool in ecological research.

For example, macroevolutionary hypotheses are generally only testable using observational data. They suffer from the obvious problem that they generally relate to processes of speciation and extinction that occurred millions of years ago. The exception is the case of short generation, fast evolving microcosms, in which experimental macroevolution is actually possible. Which makes them really cool :-) In a new paper, Jiaqui Tan, Xian Yang and Lin Jiang showing that “Species ecological similarity modulates the importance of colonization history for adaptive radiation”. The question of how ecological factors such as competition and predation impact evolutionary processes such as the rapid diversification of a lineage (adaptive radiation) is an important one, but generally difficult to address (Nuismer & Harmon, 2015; Gillespie, 2004). Species that arrive to a new site will experience particular abiotic and biotic conditions that in turn may alter the likelihood that adaptive radiation will occur. Potentially, arriving early—before competitors are present—could maximize opportunities for usage of niche space and so allow adaptive radiation. Arriving later, once competitors are established, might suppress adaptive radiation.

More realistically, arrival order will interact with resident composition, and so the effects of arriving earlier or later are modified by the identities of the other species present in a site. After all, competitors may use similar resources, and compete less, or have greater resource usage and so compete more. Although hypotheses regarding adaptive radiation are often phrased in terms of a vague ‘niche space’, they might better be phrased in terms of niche differences and fitness differences. Under such a framework, simply having species present or not present at a site does not provide information about the amount of niche overlap. Using coexistence theory, Tan et al. produced a set of hypotheses predicting when adaptive radiation should be expected, given the biotic composition of the site (Figure below). In particular, they predicted that colonization history (order of arrival) would be less important in cases where species present interacted very little. Equally, when species had large fitness differences, they predicted that one species would suppress the other, and the order in which they arrived would be immaterial. ­

From Tan et al. 2017

The authors tested this using a bacterial microcosm with 6 bacterial competitors and a focal species – Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. SBW25 is known for its rapid evolution, which can produce genetically distinct phenotypes. Microcosm patches contained 2 species, SBW25 and one competitor species, and their order of arrival was varied. After 12 days, the phenotypic richness of SBW25 was measured in all replicates.

From Tan et al. 2017. Competitor order of arrival in general altered the final phenotypic richness of SBW25.

Both order of arrival and the identity of the competitor did indeed matter as predictors of final phenotypic richness (i.e. adaptive radiation) of SBW25. Further, these two variables interacted to significantly. Arrival order was most important when the 2 species were strong competitors (similar niche and fitness differences), in which case late arrival of SBW25 suppressed its radiation. On the other hand, when species interact weakly, arrival order had little affect on radiation. The effect of different interactions were not entirely simple, but particularly interesting to me was that fitness differences, rather than niche differences, often had important effects (see Figure below). The move away from considering the adaptive radiation hypothesis in terms of niche space, and restating it more precisely, here allowed important insights into the underlying mechanisms. Especially as researchers are developing more complex models of macroevolution, which incorporate factors such as evolution, having this kind of data available to inform them is really important.

Interaction between final phenotype richness and arrival order for B) niche differences and D) fitness differences. S-C refers to arrival of SWB25 first, C-S refers to its later arrival. 

Can coexistence theories coexist?

These days, the term ‘niche’ manages to cover both incredibly vague and incredibly specific ideas. All the many ways of thinking about an organism’s niche fill the literature, with various degrees of inter-connection and non-independence. The two dominant descriptions in modern ecology (last 30 years or so) are from ‘contemporary niche theory’ and ‘modern coexistence theory’. Contemporary niche theory is developed from consumer-resource theory, where organisms' interactions occur via usage of shared resources. (Though it has expanded to incorporate predators, mutualists, etc), Analytical tools such as ZNGIs and R* values can be used to predict the likelihood of coexistence (e.g. Tilman 1981, Chase & Leibold 2003). Modern coexistence theory is rooted in Peter Chesson’s 2000 ARES review (and earlier work), and describes coexistence in terms of fitness and niche components that allow positive population growth.

On the surface these two theories share many conceptual similarities, particularly the focus on measuring niche overlap for coexistence. [Chesson’s original work explicitly connects the R* values from Tilman’s work to species’ fitnesses in his framework as well]. But as a new article in Ecological Monographs points out, the two theories are separated in the literature and in practice. The divergence started with their theoretical foundations: niche theory relied on consumer-resource models and explicit, mechanistic understanding of organisms’ resource usage, while coexistence theory was presented in terms of Lotka-Volterra competition models and so phenomenological (e.g. the mechanisms determining competition coefficients values are not directly measured). The authors note, “This trade-off between mechanistic precision (e.g. which resources are regulating coexistence?) and phenomenological accuracy (e.g. can they coexist?) has been inherited by the two frameworks….”

There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches, and both have been used in important ecological studies. So it's surprising that they are rarely mentioned in the same breathe. Letten et al. answer an important question: when directly compared, can we translate the concepts and terms from contemporary niche theory into modern coexistence theory and vice versa?

Background - when is coexistence expected? 
Contemporary niche theory (CNT) (for the simplest case of two limiting resources): for each species, you must know the consumption or impact they have on each resource; the ratio at which the two resources are supplied, and the ZNGIs (zero net growth isoclines, which delimit the resource conditions a species can grow in). Coexistence occurs when the species are better competitors for different resources, when each species has a greater impact on their more limiting resource, and when the supply ratio of the two resources doesn’t favour one species over the other. (simple!)

For modern coexistence theory (MCT), stable coexistence occurs when the combination of fitness differences and niche differences between species allow both species to maintain positive per capita growth rates. As niche overlap decreases, increasingly small fitness differences are necessary for coexistence.

Fig 1, from Letten et al. The criteria for coexistence under modern coexistence theory (a) and contemporary niche theory (b).  In (a), f1 and f2 reflect species' fitnesses. In (b) "coexistence of two species competing for two substitutable resources depends on three criteria: intersecting ZNGIs (solid red and blue lines connecting the x- and y-axes); each species having a greater impact on the resource from which it most benefits (impact vectors denoted by the red and blue arrows); and a resource supply ratio that is intermediate to the inverse of the impact vectors (dashed red and blue lines)."

So how do these two descriptions of coexistence relate to each other? Letten et al. demonstrate that:
1) Changing the supply rates of resources (for CNT) impacts the fitness ratio (equalizing term in MCT). This is a nice illustration of how the environment affects the fitness ratios of species in MCT.

2) Increasing overlap of the impact niche between two species under CNT is consistent with increasing overlap of modern coexistence theory's niche too. When two species have similar impacts on their resources, there should be very high niche overlap (weak stabilizing term) under MCT too.

3) When two species' ZNGI area converge (i.e. the conditions necessary for positive growth rates), it affects both the stabilizing and equalizing terms in MCT. However, this has little meaningful effect on coexistence (since niche overlap increases, but fitness differences decrease as well).

This is a helpful advance because Letten et al. make these two frameworks speak the same (mathematical) language. Further, this connects a phenomological framework with a (more) mechanistic one. The stabilizing-equalizing concept framework (MCT) has been incredibly useful as a way of understanding why we see coexistence, but it is not meant to predict coexistence in new environments/with new combinations of species. On the other hand, contemporary niche theory can be predictive, but is unwieldy and information intensive. One way forward may be this: reconciling the similarities in how both frameworks think about coexistence.

Letten, Andrew D., Ke, Po-Ju, Fukami, Tadashi. 2016. Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecological Monographs: 557-7015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1242
(This is a monograph for a reason, so I am just covering the major points Letten et al provide in the paper. It's definitely worth a careful read as well!).

Can there be a periodic table of niches?

Are there a limited number of categories or groupings into which all niches can be classified?  I’ll 

admit that my first reaction is skepticism. For those ecologists who think of the similarities and generalities across systems, this may be an easier sell, compared to those who get caught up in the complexities of ecological systems. Classifying niches in this way is apparently a vision that distinguished ecologists have voiced: MacArthur: “I predict there will be erected a two- or three-way classification of organisms and their geometrical and temporal environments, this classification consuming most of the creative energy of ecologists.” 

From Winemiller et al. 2015.

Kirk O. Winemiller, Daniel B. Fitzgerald, Luke M. Bower, and Eric R. Pianka, takes on this rather ambitious goal in a new paper: “Functional traits, convergent evolution, and periodic tables of niches”. The periodic table, of course, is the foundation of chemistry – the predictive, descriptive arrangement of chemical elements based on their atomic number. Ecology may never achieve a similarly simple foundation, but the authors suggest that such a general classification of possible niches (and the species that are within them) is possible. A niche within a table would extend across taxa, habitats, and biomes, and would be seen repeatedly (i.e. periodically) across these.

Perhaps because they (and their reviewers) recognized the ambitious nature of this task, the paper helpfully acknowledges the reasons that a periodic table of niches might be a terrible idea right away. Unlike chemistry, ecology is strongly dependent on context, and stochasticity limits generality. The multi-dimensionality of the modern niche concept limits how few axes such a table could be reduced to. Evolution means that classifying a species’ niche is like trying to hit a moving target.

Examples of convergent evolution are common.

Still, even the chemical periodic table has some fuzzy matching going on – isotopes still group together under a given element, despite variation. “In the same way, elements can have different isotopes,…a niche category could have phenotypic variants but still have ecological properties or functions that are essentially the same.” In particular, the authors argue that convergent evolution has recreated particular suites of traits (niches) in different habitats and distantly related taxa. This has some connection to the idea that, perhaps, much like complex systems, complex arrays of traits may reoccur because they provide stability (e.g. are selected for).

How then to approach this task? Here the periodic table is rooted in a functional trait approach, where observable phenotypes capture niche information. The dimensions of the table are determined based on what must have been the result of long discussions and much difficulty, but the authors restricted themselves to five essential components: abiotic habitat, life history strategy, trophic position, defense mechanisms, and metabolic allocation strategies.

 

From Winemiller et al 2015.

From here, the use of various ordination approaches allow researchers to begin to identify species sharing trait combinations, allowing them to be classified within the table (see paper text for more detail). The combinations of these dimensions observed or unobserved in nature should inform us about the stability of certain niches, and perhaps provide predictions about which species to use for restoration approaches, which species may be invasive in a given system, or to predict shifting distributions.

If you had many different ecologists each develop a ‘periodic table of niches’, each table would be unique, evidence for how difficult drawing general principles and identifying the fundamental ecological dimensions is. Another person might consider dispersal its own dimension, for example, or dismiss defenses. This is especially true because the periodic table presented in this paper is phenomenological, lacking a clear connection with theoretical work, for example. The proof will be in its application and utility – do others adopt it, is it predictive, does it extend our understanding of the niche or improve applications? And I think there is a direction for functional ecology implicit in this work.

Their hearkening to MacArthur makes me wonder what MacArthur would think if he saw ecology today. His prediction that “there will be erected a two- or three-way classification of organisms and their geometrical and temporal environments, this classification consuming most of the creative energy of ecologists” falls short, but not in the ways he might have expected. Here then, is a classification system (and there have been other ideas and versions since his time), but even the 2 or 3 dimensions he generously offers aren't deemed nearly enough to capture ecological diversity. Is the simplicity that MacArthur mentions still considered possible? And I don't think the creative energy of ecologists has been focused on classifying niches in the way he mentions: it is more dispersed amongst topics, and human effects (climate change, fragmentation, habitat loss) have had a dominant role.

Winemiller, Kirk O., Fitzgerald, Daniel B., Bower, Luke M., Pianka, Eric R. 2015.  Functional traits, convergent evolution, and periodic tables of niches. Ecology Letters. DOI: 10.1111/ele.12462

Phylogeny, competition and Darwin: a better answer?

*Sorry for the low frequency of posts these days – I seem to be insanely busy this summer ☺

Oscar Godoy, Nathan Kraft, Jonathan Levine. 2014. Phylogenetic relatedness and the determinants of competitive outcomes. Ecology Letters.

Ecology is hard in part because of the things we can’t (at least easily) measure: fitness, interaction strengths, and the niche, all fundamental ecological concepts. Since we are unable to measure these concepts directly, ecologists have come up with proxies and correlates. Take Darwin’s hypothesis that competition should be greater between closely related species. It relies a chain of assumptions about proxy relationships – first that relatedness should correlate with greater similarity of traits, secondly that similar traits should correlate with greater niche overlap. The true concept of interest, the niche, is un-measurable (if it is an n-dimensional hypervolume) so instead shared evolutionary history provides possible insight into species coexistence.

Ecophylogenetic studies have adopted Darwin's hypothesis as an example of how  molecular phylogenies may provide information about evolutionary history which in turn informs current ecological interactions. Phylogenies ideally capture feature diversity, and so (all things being equal) should provide information about similarity between species based on their relationship.  Despite this, studies have been mixed in terms of finding the relationship predicted by Darwin between phylogenetic relatedness and competition. It is not clear whether this mixed result suggests problems with the phylogenetic approaches being used, or non-generality of Darwin’s hypothesis.

Oscar Godoy, Nathan Kraft, and Jonathan Levine attempt to explore this question once again, but through the lens of Chesson’s coexistence framework (2000). Chesson’s framework describes competitive differences between species not as a single quantity, but instead the outcome of both stabilizing niche differences and equalizing fitness differences between species. This framework predicts that competitive differences should be greatest when species have similar niches (low stabilizing niche differences) and/or when they have large differences in fitness. This divisions alters the predictions from Darwin's hypothesis: if closely related species have similar niches, they should compete more strongly, but on the other hand, if closely related species have similar fitnesses, they should compete less strongly. Darwin’s hypothesis as it has been tested may be too simplistic.

The authors used an experiment involving 18 California grassland species to look at first, whether competitive ability is conserved, and more generally to explore whether phylogenetic distance predicts “the niche differences that stabilize coexistence and the fitness differences that drive competitive exclusion?” Further, can this information be used to predict the relationship between phylogeny and competitive outcomes? To determine this, they quantified germination, fecundity, seed survival, and interaction coefficients for the 18 species based on competition with different competitors (both by identity and density), and quantified the strength of stabilizing and equalizing forces (as in previous works). With this information, they calculated for each species the average fitness and ranked species in a competitive hierarchy using a fully parameterized annual plant population model. Species’ competitive rank did in fact show a phylogenetic signal (Figure 1), and the strongest competitors were clustered in the Asteraceae and its sister node.

Fig 1. Relationship between competitive rank among the 18 CA grassland species.

Competitive rank was then decomposed into fitness differences and niche differences. Fitness differences showed the clearest relationship with phylogeny - distantly related competitors had significantly greater asymmetries in fitness, closely related species had similar fitnesses (Figure 2). However stabilizing niche differences showed no phylogenetic signal at all (Figure 3, solid line).

Fig. 2. Relationships between fitness differences and phylogenetic distance.

Fig 3. Solid line - observed niche distances as a function of phylogenetic distance. Dashed line, size of distances actually needed to assure coexistence.

The authors could then calculate, for a given pair of species with a given phylogenetic distance, the expected fitness difference (based on the fitness difference-phylogeny relationship), and given this, the amount of stabilizing niche differences that would be necessary to prevent competitive exclusion between pairs of species. When they did this, they found that the required stabilizing niche differences were much larger than those that actually existed between the plants. This was especially true between distant related species(dashed line, Figure 3). Darwin’s hypothesis, that closely related species should be more likely to coexist, seemed to be reversed for these species.

How should we interpret these results more broadly? Is this reinforcement of the use of phylogenetic information to answer ecological questions, provided the questions are asked correctly? One of the most interesting contributions of this paper is their discussion of the oft-seen, but poorly incorporated, increase in variation in a trait (here fitness differences) as phylogenetic distances increase. This uneven variance often leads to phylogenetic-trait correlations being labelled non-significant, since it violates the assumptions of linear models. In contrast, here the authors suggest that this uneven variance is important. “For example, even if on average, both niche and fitness differences increase with phylogenetic distance, the increasing variance in these relationships means that only distant relatives are likely combine large competitive asymmetries with small niche differences (rapid competitive exclusion), or large niche differences with small competitive asymmetries (highly stable coexistence). Overall, our results suggest that increasing variance in niche or fitness differences with phylogenetic distance may play a central role in determining the phylogenetic relatedness of coexisting species.”

This discussion is important for questions about phylogenetic relatedness and coexistence – variability is part of the answer, not evidence against the existence of such relationships. However, a few caveats seem important: Because fitness differences and niche differences as defined in the Chesson framework may not be easily associated with traits (since a single trait might contribute to both components), it seems that it will be a little difficult to expand these analyses to less rigourous experimental settings. This might also be important to hypothesize how fitness or niche differences per se become associated with phylogenetic differences, since traits/genes are actually under selection. But the paper definitely provides an interesting direction forward.

Chesson, P. 2000. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:343-366.

Null models matter, but what should they look like?

Neutral Biogeography and the Evolution of Climatic Niches. Florian C. Boucher, Wilfried Thuiller, T. Jonathan Davies, and Sébastien Lavergne. The American Naturalist, Vol. 183, No. 5 (May 2014), pp. 573-584

Null models have become a fundamental part of community ecology. For the most part, this is an improvement over our null-model free days: patterns are now interpreted with reference to patterns that might arise through chance and in the absence of ecological processes of interest. Null models today are ubiquitous in tests of phylogenetic signals, patterns of species co-occurrence, models of species distribution-climate relationships. But even though null models are a success in that they are widespread and commonly used, there are problems--in particular, there is a disconnect between how null models are chosen and interpreted and what information they actually provide. Unfortunately, simple and easily applied null models tend to be favoured, but they are often interpreted as though they are complicated, mechanism-explicit models.

The new paper “Neutral Biogeography and the Evolution of Climatic Niches” from Boucher et al. provides a good example of this problem. The premise of the paper is straightforward: studies of phylogenetic niche conservation tend to rely on simple null models, and as a result may misinterpret what their data shows because of the type of null models that they use. The study of phylogenetic niche conservation and niche evolution is becoming increasingly popular, particularly studies on how species' climatic niches evolve and how climate niches relate to patterns of diversity. In a time of changing climates, there are also important applications looking at how species respond to climatic shifts. Studies of changes in climate niches through evolutionary time usually rely on a definition of the climate niche based on empirical data, more specifically, the mean position of a given species along a continuous abiotic gradient. Because this is not directly tied to physiological measurements, climate niche data may also capture the effect of dispersal limitations or biotic interactions. Hence the need for null models, however the null models used in these studies primarily flag changes in climate niche that result from to random drift or selection in a varying environment. These types of null models use Brownian motion (a "random walk") to answer questions about whether niches are more or less similar than expected due to chance, or else whether a particular model of niche evolution is a better fit to the data than a model of Brownian motion.

The authors suggest that the reliance on Brownian motion is problematic, since these simple null models cannot actually distinguish between patterns of climate niches that arise simply due to speciation and migration but no selection on climate niches, and those that are the result of true niche evolution. If this is true, conclusions about niche evolution may be suspect, since they depend on the null model used. The authors used a neutral, spatially explicit model (known as an "alternative neutral biogeographic model") that simulates dynamics driven only by speciation and migration, with species being neutral in their dynamics. This provides an alternative model of patterns that may arise in climate niches among species, despite the absence of direct selection on the trait. The paper then looks at whether climatic niches exhibit phylogenetic signals when they arise via neutral spatial dynamics; if gradualism a reasonable neutral expectation for the evolution of climatic niches on geological timescales; and whether constraints on climatic niche diversification can arise simply through bounded geographic space. Simulations of the neutral biogeographic model used a gridded “continent” with variable climate conditions: each cell has a carrying capacity, and species move via migration and split into two species either by point mutation, or else by vicariance (a geographic barrier appears, leading to divergence of 2 populations). Not surprisingly, their results show that even in the absence of any selection on species’ climate niches, patterns can result that differ greatly from a simple Brownian motion-based null model. So the simple null model (Brownian motion) often concluded that results from the more complex null model were different from the random/null expectation. This isn't a problem per se. The problem is that currently interpretations of the Brownian motion model may be that anything different from null is a signal for niche evolution (or conservation). Obviously that is not  correct.

This paper is focused on the issue of choosing null models for studies of climate niche evolution, but it fits into a current of thought about the problems with how ecologists are using null models. It is one thing to know that you need and want to use a null model, but it is much more difficult to construct an appropriate null model, and interpret the output correctly. Null models (such as the Brownian motion null model) are often so simplistic that they are straw man arguments – if ecology isn't the result of only randomness, your null model is pretty likely to be a poor fit to the data. On the other hand, the more specific and complex the null model is, the easier it is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Given how much data is interpreted in the light of null models, it seems that choosing and interpreting null models needs to be more of a priority.

The contrasting effects of habitat area and heterogeneity on diversity

“How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!” (Thomas H. Huxley, commenting on the obviousness of Darwin’s theory of natural selection)

Sometimes I read a paper and Huxley’s famous quote seems exceedingly appropriate. Why I say this is that a new idea or concept is presented which seems both so simple and at the same time a potentially powerful explanation of patterns in nature. This was my reaction to a recent paper from Omri Allouche and colleagues published in the Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Science. The paper presents a simple conceptual model, in the same vein as Connell’s classic intermediate disturbance hypothesis, which accounts for large-scale diversity patterns based on aspects of species niche requirements as well as classic stochastic theory. Merging these two aspects is a critical step forward, as in ecology, there has been a tension in explaining diversity patterns between niche-based processes requiring that species exhibit differences in their needs, and stochastic (or neutral) explanations that ignore these differences, but seem to do well at large scales.

The classic stochastic model in ecology, the theory of island biogeography, simply predicted that the number of species increases with the size of an island or habitat, and ultimately is the balance between species colonizing and going extinct. Allouche et al. also assume this stochastic colonization and extinction, such that in a uniform environment, the number of species increases with area. However, they then add the fact that species do not do equally well in different habitats, that is they have specific environmental niches associated with a particular environment. Thus as you increase the amount of heterogeneity in a landscape, you increase the total number of species, because you’ve captured more niches. However, there is a trade-off here. Namely, as you increase the heterogeneity in a landscape, the amount of area for the dominant habitat type decreases, thus reducing the number of species. So if you increase the heterogeneity too much, the individual habitat types will be too small to support large numbers of species and the numbers of species will be less than regions with less heterogeneity –paradoxically.

Their heuristic prediction is that diversity is maximized at intermediate levels of heterogeneity, as long as species have intermediate niche breadths (i.e., they could perhaps use a couple of different habitats). However, if their niche breadth is too narrow (i.e., they can only exist in a single habitat type), then diversity may only decline with increasing heterogeneity. Conversely, if species have very broad niche breadths (i.e., can survive in many different habitats) then the tradeoff vanishes and heterogeneity has little effect on diversity.

They tested this exceedingly simple prediction using European bird data and found that species richness was maximized at intermediate heterogeneity (measured by the variation in elevation). Further, when they classified species into different niche width classes, they found that the relationship between richness and heterogeneity changed was predicted (i.e., strongest for intermediate breadth).

This is a great paper and should have a large impact. It will be exciting to see what other systems fit this pattern and how specific studies later the interpretation or mechanisms in this model.

Allouche, O., Kalyuzhny, M., Moreno-Rueda, G., Pizarro, M., & Kadmon, R. (2012). Area-heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (43), 17495-17500 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1208652109

Competitive coexistence, it's all about individuals.

Understanding how species coexist has been the raison d'etre for many ecologists over the past 100 years. The quest to understand and explain why so many species coexist together has really been a journey of shifting narratives. The major road stops on this journey have included searching for niche differences among species -from single resources to multidimensional niches, elevating the role for non-equilibrial dynamics -namely disturbances, and assessing the possibility that species actually differ little and diversity patterns follow neutral process. Along this entire journey, researchers (especially theoreticians) have reminded the larger community that that coexistence is a product of the balance between interactions among species (interspecific) and interactions among individuals within species (intraspecific). Despite this occasional reminder, ecologists have largely searched for mechanisms dictating the strength of interspecific interactions.

Image used under Flickr creative commons license, taken by Tinken

In order for two species to coexist, intraspecific competition must be stronger than interspecific -so sayeth classic models of competition. While people have consistently looked for niche differences that reduce interspecific competition, no one has really assessed the strength of intraspecific competition. Until now that is. In a recent paper in Science, Jim Clark examines intra- vs interspecific interactions from data following individual tree performances, across multiple species, for up to 18 years. This data set included annual growth and reproduction, resulting in 226,000 observations across 22,000 trees in 33 species!

His question was actually quite simple -what is the strength of intraspecific interactions relative to interspecific ones? There are two alternatives. First, that intraspecific competition is higher, meaning that among species differences only need to be small for coexistence to occur; or secondly, that intraspecific competition is lower, requiring greater species niche differences for coexistence. To answer this he looked at correlations in growth and fecundity between individuals either belonging to the same or different species, living in proximity to one another. He took a strong positive correlation as evidence for strong competition and a negative or weak correlation as evidence for resource or temporal niche partitioning. What he found was that individuals within species were much more likely to show correlated responses to fluctuating environments, than individuals among species.

This paper represents persuasive evidence that within-species competition is generally extremely high, meaning that to satisfy the inequality leading to coexistence: intra > inter, subtle niche differences can be sufficient. These findings should spur a new era of theoretical predictions and empirical tests as our collective journey to understanding coexistence continues.

Clark, J. (2010). Individuals and the Variation Needed for High Species Diversity in Forest Trees Science, 327 (5969), 1129-1132 DOI: 10.1126/science.1183506