Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Observing temporal processes in nature
- 2 The storage effect: definition and tests in two plant communities
- 3 What temporal processes in trees tell us about competition, community structure and speciation
- 4 Testing the storage effect with long-term observational data
- 5 Seedling herbivory and the temporal niche
- 6 Temporal variation in density dependence in an herbaceous community
- 7 Population and community dynamics in variable environments: the desert annual system
- 8 Temporal niches, ecosystem function and climate change
- Part II Application to specific questions
- Index
- References
4 - Testing the storage effect with long-term observational data
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2013
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Observing temporal processes in nature
- 2 The storage effect: definition and tests in two plant communities
- 3 What temporal processes in trees tell us about competition, community structure and speciation
- 4 Testing the storage effect with long-term observational data
- 5 Seedling herbivory and the temporal niche
- 6 Temporal variation in density dependence in an herbaceous community
- 7 Population and community dynamics in variable environments: the desert annual system
- 8 Temporal niches, ecosystem function and climate change
- Part II Application to specific questions
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Over 50 years ago, Hutchinson (1941) noted that variation in environmental conditions could alter the outcome of competition. One implication of his observation was that environmental fluctuations could promote coexistence, allowing many species to persist in a habitat where all but one would be excluded under constant conditions. By the end of the 1980s, Chesson and colleagues had clearly described the theoretical requirements for coexistence via the storage effect (Chesson and Warner 1981, Warner and Chesson 1985, Chesson and Huntly 1989). Yet despite the long history of these ideas, relatively few direct empirical tests of the storage effect exist. Studies from a variety of natural ecosystems provide partial evidence for the storage effect (Pake and Venable 1995, 1996, Kelly and Bowler 2002, Descamps-Julien and Gonzalez 2005, Facelli et al. 2005, Kelly et al. 2008), but tests of all the required conditions or quantification of the strength of the effect are much rarer (Cáceres 1997, Adler et al. 2006, 2009, Angert et al. 2009).
The lack of rigorous case studies limits our ability to generalise about the role of the temporal storage effect in maintaining diversity. We know that multiple coexistence mechanisms will operate in different communities, but currently we cannot say where the storage effect makes an especially important contribution. This information will be essential for understanding the consequences of expected increases in climate variability (Karl and Trenberth 2003, Jain et al. 2005, Salinger 2005, Allan and Soden 2008), which could impact species diversity in systems where the storage effect is important (Adler and Drake 2008). Understanding the influence of the storage effect on coexistence across a variety of ecosystems is therefore a prerequisite for anticipating future changes in species diversity.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Temporal Dynamics and Ecological Process , pp. 82 - 101Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
and (2008). Environmental variation, stochastic extinction, and competitive coexistence. American Naturalist 172, 186–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2010). Coexistence of perennial plants: an embarrassment of niches. Ecology Letters 13, 1019–1029.Google ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2006). Climate variability has a stabilizing effect on coexistence of prairie grasses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 103, 12793–12798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2009). Weak effect of climate variability on coexistence in a sagebrush steppe community. Ecology 90, 3303–3312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Dormancy and germination in a guild of Sonoran Desert annuals. Ecology 85, 2582–2590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1965). Vegetation changes during a 30-year period in grassland communities near Hays, Kansas. Ecology 46, 714–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008). Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes. Science 321, 1481–1484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2009). Functional tradeoffs determine species coexistence via the storage effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106, 11641–11645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1997). Temporal variation, dormancy, and coexistence: a field test of the storage effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 94, 9171–9175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1990). Geometry, heterogeneity and competition in variable environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 330, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31, 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2008). Quantifying and testing species coexistence mechanisms. In , , et al. (eds), Unity in Diversity: Reflections on Ecology after the Legacy of Ramon Margalef. Bilbao, Spain: Fundación BBVA, pp. 119–164.Google Scholar
and (1989). Short-term instabilities and long-term community dynamics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1981). Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. American Naturalist 117, 923–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2004). Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 141, 236–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Why environmental scientists are becoming Bayesians. Ecology Letters 8, 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). Stable coexistence in a fluctuating environment: an experimental demonstration. Ecology 86, 2815–2824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). Stochastic stable population growth in integral projection models: theory and application. Journal of Mathematical Biology 54, 227–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2006). Integral projection models for species with complex demography. American Naturalist 167, 410–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2005). Differences in seed biology of annual plants in arid lands: a key ingredient of the storage effect. Ecology 86, 2998–3006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Comparative demography of plants based upon elasticities of vital rates. Ecology 85, 531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1941). Ecological aspects of succession in natural populations. American Naturalist 75, 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2005). Decreasing reliability and increasing synchroneity of western North American streamflow. Journal of Climate 18, 613–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). Coexistence and relative abundance in forest trees. Nature 417, 437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2008). Phylogeny, niches, and relative abundance in natural communities. Ecology 89, 962–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2008). Demography of perennial grassland plants: survival, life expectancy and life span. Journal of Ecology 96, 1023–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2009). The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity. Nature 461, 254–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1995). Is coexistence of Sonoran Desert annuals mediated by temporal variability in reproductive success? Ecology 76, 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1996). Seed banks in desert annuals: implications for persistence and coexistence in variable environments. Ecology 77, 1427–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1963). Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. American Naturalist 97, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Climate variability and change: past, present and future – an overview. Climatic Change 70, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1993). Comparative plant demography: relative importance of life-cycle components to the finite rate of increase in woody and herbaceous perennials. Journal of Ecology 81, 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1985). Coexistence mediated by recruitment fluctuations: a field guide to the storage effect. American Naturalist 125, 769–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1979). Plant demographic studies in sagebrush-grass communities of southeastern Idaho. Ecology 60, 376–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 2
- Cited by