Nutrient flows between ecosystems can destabilize simple food chains

Dispersal of organisms has large effects on the dynamics and stability of populations and communities. However, current metacommunity theory largely ignores how the flows of limiting nutrients across ecosystems can influence communities. We studied a meta-ecosystem model where two autotroph-consumer communities are spatially coupled through the diffusion of the limiting nutrient. We analyzed regional and local stability, as well as spatial and temporal synchrony to elucidate the impacts of nutrient recycling and diffusion on trophic dynamics. We show that nutrient diffusion is capable of inducing asynchronous local destabilization of biotic compartments through a diffusion-induced spatiotemporal bifurcation. Nutrient recycling interacts with nutrient diffusion and influences the susceptibility of the meta-ecosystem to diffusion-induced instabilities. This interaction between nutrient recycling and transport is further shown to depend on ecosystem enrichment. It more generally emphasizes the importance of meta-ecosystem theory for predicting species persistence and distribution in managed ecosystems.     

Weak trophic interactions and the balance of enriched metacommunities

Weak trophic interactions have been shown to promote the stability of ecological food webs characterized by perfect mixing. However, their importance at the landscape level and response to enrichment has not been extensively examined. In this paper we examine the food-web model explored by McCann et al. [1998. Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395, 794-798]. The model is expanded into a metacommunity construct where local communities are coupled through global or local dispersal. We analyze global and local stability, as well as spatial synchrony in relation to trophic interaction strength and dispersal regimes. Results reveal that weak interactions can operate through two scale-dependent mechanisms: (i) under low local dispersal regimes, local stabilization of each community under weak interactions directly scales-up to global stability. (ii) Under high local dispersal, asynchronous local destabilization associated with weak interactions proves the driver behind global stability. In the face of enrichment, weak trophic interactions are shown to be instrumental in promoting global stability when dispersal is local. These results demonstrate how the importance of weak trophic interactions can be generalized at the landscape level despite contrary local predictions.     

When and why do non-neutral metacommunities appear neutral?

Hubbell's neutral theory assumes that all species in a community have the same per capita fitness. Despite the overwhelming evidence against this assumption in most communities the neutral theory has often been, though not always, successful at predicting patterns of diversity in nature. I analyze a non-neutral model in order to suggest conditions under which observed species-abundance distributions (SADs) could be expected to resemble neutral distributions. The non-neutral model consists of two guilds of species such that (1) individuals between guilds do not interact, (2) dynamics within guilds follow Hubbell's model and (3) neutral parameters between guilds differ. This two-guild model generates SADs that appear neutral in some cases and clearly non-neutral in other cases. This result suggests that SADs may be more informative about niche structure than previously thought. The two-guild model could be tested in communities composed of fairly well-defined guilds or functional groups.     

Whither adaptation?

The two authors of this paper have diametrically opposed views of the prevalence and strength of adaptation in nature. Hendry believes that adaptation can be seen almost everywhere and that evidence for it is overwhelming and ubiquitous. Gonzalez believes that adaptation is uncommon and that evidence for it is ambiguous at best. Neither author is certifiable to the knowledge of the other, leaving each to wonder where the other has his head buried. Extensive argument has revealed that each author thinks his own view is amply supported by both theory and empirical evidence. Further reflection has revealed that the differences in opinion may start with the different disciplines in which we work: evolutionary ecology for Hendry and community ecology for Gonzalez. In the present paper, we each present devastating evidence supporting our own position and thus refuting that of the other. We then identify the critical differences that led to such opposing views. We close by combining our two perspectives into a common framework based on the adaptive landscape, and thereby suggest means by which to assess the prevalence and strength of adaptation.