Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Dec 7;269(1508):2389–2393. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2164

A novel theory to explain species diversity in landscapes: positive frequency dependence and habitat suitability.

Jane Molofsky 1, James D Bever 1
PMCID: PMC1691177  PMID: 12495479

Abstract

Theories to explain the diversity of species have required that individual species occupy unique niches and/or vary in their response to environmental factors. Positive interactions within a species, although common in communities, have not been thought to maintain species diversity because in non-spatial models the more abundant species always outcompetes the rarer species. Here, we show, using a stochastic spatial model, that positive intraspecific interactions such as those caused by positive frequency dependence and/or priority effects, can maintain species diversity if interactions between individuals are primarily local and the habitat contains areas that cannot be colonized by any species, such as boulders or other physical obstructions. When intraspecific interactions are primarily neutral, species diversity will eventually erode to a single species. When the landscape is homogeneous (i.e. does not contain areas that cannot be colonized by any species), the presence of strong intraspecific interactions will not maintain diversity.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (510.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Antonovics J., Kareiva P. Frequency-dependent selection and competition: empirical approaches. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1988 Jul 6;319(1196):601–613. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1988.0068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayala F. J. Competition between Species: Frequency Dependence. Science. 1971 Feb 26;171(3973):820–824. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3973.820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clarke B. The evidence for apostatic selection. Heredity (Edinb) 1969 Aug;24(3):347–352. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1969.52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hubbell S. P. Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest. Science. 1979 Mar 30;203(4387):1299–1309. doi: 10.1126/science.203.4387.1299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Levins R. Discussion paper: the qualitative analysis of partially specified systems. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1974;231(1):123–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1974.tb20562.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. May R. M., Anderson R. M. Epidemiology and genetics in the coevolution of parasites and hosts. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1983 Oct 22;219(1216):281–313. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1983.0075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Molofsky J., Bever J. D., Antonovics J. Coexistence under positive frequency dependence. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Feb 7;268(1464):273–277. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Molofsky J., Durrett R., Dushoff J., Griffeath D., Levin S. Local frequency dependence and global coexistence. Theor Popul Biol. 1999 Jun;55(3):270–282. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1998.1404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wright S. Isolation by Distance. Genetics. 1943 Mar;28(2):114–138. doi: 10.1093/genetics/28.2.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES