Interspecific interactions and range limits: contrasts among interaction types

William Godsoe, Nathaniel J. Holland, George Cosner, Bruce E. Kendall, Angela Brett, Jill Jankowski, Robert D. Holt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalTheoretical Ecology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Nov 29 2016

Fingerprint

interspecific interaction
amensalism
commensalism
mutualism
predation
distribution
effect

Keywords

  • Biotic interactions
  • Competition
  • Mutualism
  • Range limits
  • Species’ distributions
  • Stress gradient hypothesis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Ecological Modeling

Cite this

Godsoe, W., Holland, N. J., Cosner, G., Kendall, B. E., Brett, A., Jankowski, J., & Holt, R. D. (Accepted/In press). Interspecific interactions and range limits: contrasts among interaction types. Theoretical Ecology, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-016-0319-7

Interspecific interactions and range limits : contrasts among interaction types. / Godsoe, William; Holland, Nathaniel J.; Cosner, George; Kendall, Bruce E.; Brett, Angela; Jankowski, Jill; Holt, Robert D.

In: Theoretical Ecology, 29.11.2016, p. 1-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Godsoe, William ; Holland, Nathaniel J. ; Cosner, George ; Kendall, Bruce E. ; Brett, Angela ; Jankowski, Jill ; Holt, Robert D. / Interspecific interactions and range limits : contrasts among interaction types. In: Theoretical Ecology. 2016 ; pp. 1-13.
@article{45a6895fe55e4d968b0c8a8a22d66286,
title = "Interspecific interactions and range limits: contrasts among interaction types",
abstract = "There is a great deal of interest in the effects of biotic interactions on geographic distributions. Nature contains many different types of biotic interactions (notably mutualism, commensalism, predation, amensalism, and competition), and it is difficult to compare the effects of multiple interaction types on species’ distributions. To resolve this problem, we analyze a general, flexible model of pairwise biotic interactions that can describe all interaction types. In the absence of strong positive feedback, a species’ ability to be present depends on its ability to increase in numbers when it is rare and the species it is interacting with is at equilibrium. This insight leads to counterintuitive conclusions. Notably, we often predict the same range limit when the focal species experiences competition, predation, or amensalism. Similarly, we often predict the same range margin or when the species experiences mutualism, commensalism, or benefits from prey. In the presence of strong positive density-dependent feedback, different species interactions produce different range limits in our model. In all cases, the abiotic environment can indirectly influence the impact of biotic interactions on range limits. We illustrate the implications of this observation by analyzing a stress gradient where biotic interactions are harmful in benign environments but beneficial in stressful environments. Our results emphasize the need to consider the effects of all biotic interactions on species’ range limits and provide a systematic comparison of when biotic interactions affect distributions.",
keywords = "Biotic interactions, Competition, Mutualism, Range limits, Species’ distributions, Stress gradient hypothesis",
author = "William Godsoe and Holland, {Nathaniel J.} and George Cosner and Kendall, {Bruce E.} and Angela Brett and Jill Jankowski and Holt, {Robert D.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1007/s12080-016-0319-7",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--13",
journal = "Theoretical Ecology",
issn = "1874-1738",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interspecific interactions and range limits

T2 - contrasts among interaction types

AU - Godsoe, William

AU - Holland, Nathaniel J.

AU - Cosner, George

AU - Kendall, Bruce E.

AU - Brett, Angela

AU - Jankowski, Jill

AU - Holt, Robert D.

PY - 2016/11/29

Y1 - 2016/11/29

N2 - There is a great deal of interest in the effects of biotic interactions on geographic distributions. Nature contains many different types of biotic interactions (notably mutualism, commensalism, predation, amensalism, and competition), and it is difficult to compare the effects of multiple interaction types on species’ distributions. To resolve this problem, we analyze a general, flexible model of pairwise biotic interactions that can describe all interaction types. In the absence of strong positive feedback, a species’ ability to be present depends on its ability to increase in numbers when it is rare and the species it is interacting with is at equilibrium. This insight leads to counterintuitive conclusions. Notably, we often predict the same range limit when the focal species experiences competition, predation, or amensalism. Similarly, we often predict the same range margin or when the species experiences mutualism, commensalism, or benefits from prey. In the presence of strong positive density-dependent feedback, different species interactions produce different range limits in our model. In all cases, the abiotic environment can indirectly influence the impact of biotic interactions on range limits. We illustrate the implications of this observation by analyzing a stress gradient where biotic interactions are harmful in benign environments but beneficial in stressful environments. Our results emphasize the need to consider the effects of all biotic interactions on species’ range limits and provide a systematic comparison of when biotic interactions affect distributions.

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

KW - Biotic interactions

KW - Competition

KW - Mutualism

KW - Range limits

KW - Species’ distributions

KW - Stress gradient hypothesis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85000658977&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85000658977&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12080-016-0319-7

DO - 10.1007/s12080-016-0319-7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85000658977

SP - 1

EP - 13

JO - Theoretical Ecology

JF - Theoretical Ecology

SN - 1874-1738

ER -