DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrating the Effects of Area, Isolation, and Habitat Heterogeneity on Species Diversity: a Unification of Island Biogeography and Niche Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrating the Effects of Area, Isolation, and Habitat Heterogeneity on Species Diversity: a Unification of Island Biogeography and Niche Theory vol. 170, no. 3 the american naturalist september 2007 ൴ Integrating the Effects of Area, Isolation, and Habitat Heterogeneity on Species Diversity: A Unification of Island Biogeography and Niche Theory Ronen Kadmon1 and Omri Allouche2 Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology, Institute of Life Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat-Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel Two of the most influential theories in community ecology are the theory of island biogeography (MacArthur and Submitted July 2, 2006; Accepted April 2, 2007; Wilson 1963, 1967) and niche theory (Hutchinson 1957). Electronically published July 16, 2007 Both theories attempt to explain the distribution and or- Online enhancement: appendix. ganization of species in ecological communities, but they differ in their consideration of the factors controlling the number of species in a community. Island biogeography theory emphasizes the role of area and geographical iso- abstract: We present an analytical model that unifies two of the lation as the basic determinants of species diversity most influential theories in community ecology, namely, island bio- through their effects on colonization and extinction rates geography and niche theory. Our model captures the main elements (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Brown and Kodric-Brown of both theories by incorporating the combined effects of area, iso- 1977; He et al. 2005). In contrast, niche theory emphasizes lation, stochastic colonization and extinction processes, habitat het- the role of habitat heterogeneity and niche partitioning as erogeneity, and niche partitioning in a unified, demographicallybased the main factors structuring ecological communities framework. While classical niche theory predicts a positive relation- ship between species richness and habitat heterogeneity, our unified (Hutchinson 1957; MacArthur 1972; Petren 2001; Silver- model demonstrates that area limitation and dispersal limitation (the town 2004). Surprisingly, although both theories have oc- main elements of island biogeography) may create unimodal and cupied a central role in community ecology for several even negative relationships between species richness and habitat het- decades (Higgs 1981; Austin 1985; Brown and Lomolino erogeneity. We attribute this finding to the fact that increasing het- 2000; Pulliam 2000; Chase and Leibold 2003), attempts to erogeneity increases the potential number of species that may exist integrate the basic elements of the two theories are ex- in a given area (as predicted by niche theory) but simultaneously reduces the amount of suitable area available for each species and, tremely rare, and we are still lacking a general model that thus, increases the likelihood of stochastic extinction. Area limitation, incorporates the key elements of both theories. dispersal limitation, and low reproduction rates intensify the latter In this article, we attempt to fill this gap by developing effect by increasing the likelihood of stochastic extinction. These a unified model that incorporates the basic elements of analytical results demonstrate that the integration of island bioge- island biogeography and niche theory. Our main objective ography and niche theory provides new insights about the mecha- is to provide an initial assessment of whether and how nisms that regulate the diversity of ecological communities and gen- erates unexpected predictions that could not be attained from any variations in area and isolation interact with habitat het- single theory. erogeneity and niche differentiation in determining pat- terns of species diversity. More generally, we are interested Keywords: colonization-extinction processes, community dynamics, in testing whether combining the basic elements of island demography, neutral theory of biodiversity, species-area relationship, species diversity. biogeography and niche theory in a unified model gen- erates novel predictions that could not be derived from 1 Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected]. any single theory. 2 E-mail: [email protected]. Our unified model is conceptually similar to the classical model of island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson Am. Nat. 2007. Vol. 170, pp. 443–454. ᭧ 2007 by The University of Chicago. 0003-0147/2007/17003-41939$15.00. All rights reserved. 1967), but it differs from the original model in two im- DOI: 10.1086/519853 portant aspects. First, instead of formulating the model in 444 The American Naturalist terms of colonization and extinction processes, we employ Blasio 1998; Bell 2000; Hubbell 2001; He et al. 2005), an individual-based modeling approach in which the pro- explicitly considers all species to be ecologically equivalent. cesses of colonization and extinction (and the resulting In addition to these conceptual differences, the two the- dynamics of species richness) are derived from funda- ories focus on different factors as the main determinants of mental processes of reproduction, mortality, and immi- species diversity. Niche theory emphasizes the role of en- gration. Such a demographic approach facilitates a more vironmental heterogeneity as the main factor structuring detailed analysis (and, thus, a better understanding) of the ecological communities (MacArthur 1972; Whittaker et al. mechanisms regulating the number of species in a com- 1973; Rosenzweig 1995). In spite of a continuous confusion munity. Second, while MacArthur and Wilson’s (1967) over the niche concept (Leibold 1995), and independently model and its recent successors (De Blasio 1998; Bell 2000; of whether the term niche is used to describe attributes of Lomolino 2000; Hubbell 2001; Wootton 2005) ignore the the environment (Grinnell 1917; Hutchinson 1957) or the potential effects of niche differentiation, we assume that role of the species in the environment (Elton 1927), it is individuals of different species differ from each other in widely accepted that heterogeneous environments provide their habitat requirements and explicitly incorporate hab- more niches than relatively uniform environments and may itat specialization into the model. therefore support more diverse communities. The article is organized in four parts. The first section Island biogeography theory emphasizes the roles of area provides a brief review of the main elements of each theory. and geographical isolation as the main determinants of In the second section, we present the unified model. In species diversity. Based on the assumption that coloniza- the third section, we analyze the model and derive general tion rates are determined by the degree of geographical predictions concerning the interactive effects of area, iso- isolation and extinction rates are determined by the size lation, and habitat heterogeneity on species diversity. In (area) of the island, the theory predicts that species rich- the fourth section, we discuss the implications of the an- ness should be positively correlated with island size and alytical results for our understanding of the mechanisms negatively correlated with the degree of isolation (Mac- controlling the diversity of ecological communities. Arthur and Wilson 1963, 1967). Later developments of the theory recognized that isolation may also influence ex- tinction rates because islands close to the mainland are Main Elements of Island Biogeography characterized by higher immigration rates than remote and Niche Theory islands, which reduces the likelihood of stochastic extinc- tions (the rescue effect; Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977). One possible reason for the lack of a theory integrating It has further been suggested that the area of an island the principles of island biogeography and niche theory is may influence the rate of colonization because large areas the fact that each theory relies on a conceptually different receive more colonizers than small areas (the passive sam- view of community structure. Niche theory represents an pling hypothesis; Connor and McCoy 1979). These exten- “equilibrial” view of ecological communities, in the sense sions of the original theory still consider area and isolation that species composition is assumed to be constant over as the primary determinants of species richness. time (Chave et al. 2002). Such compositional equilibrium While the original theory of island biogeography fo- (“coexistence”) requires some form of niche partitioning, cused on true islands, later developments have been ap- that is, functional differences among species in the manner plied to a wide spectrum of islandlike habitats (e.g., Harris by which they affect, and are affected by, the environment 1984; Patterson and Atmar 1986; Fox and Fox 2000; Cook (MacArthur and Levins 1967; Tilman 1982). Niche par- et al. 2002). Recently, Hubbell (2001) extended the original titioning increases the strength of intraspecific competition theory into a general theory of biodiversity and demon- relative to that of interspecific competition and, thus, fa- strated that the extended theory may explain some of the cilitates coexistence and maintenance of species diversity most fundamental patterns of species diversity. His “local (Chesson 2000; Amarasekare 2003). community model” is conceptually similar to the original In contrast to niche theory, island biogeography theory model proposed by MacArthur and Wilson (1967), and represents a “nonequilibrial” view of ecological commu- its parameters (J, the size of the local community, and m, nities in the sense that species composition is constantly the probability that a new recruit would be an immigrant) changing over time
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Species Richness: Small Scale". In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS)
    Species Richness: Small Advanced article Scale Article Contents . Introduction Rebecca L Brown, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington, USA . Factors that Affect Species Richness . Factors Affected by Species Richness Lee Anne Jacobs, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA . Conclusion Robert K Peet, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0020488 Species richness, defined as the number of species per unit area, is perhaps the simplest measure of biodiversity. Understanding the factors that affect and are affected by small- scale species richness is fundamental to community ecology. Introduction diversity indices of Simpson and Shannon incorporate species abundances in addition to species richness and are The ability to measure biodiversity is critically important, intended to reflect the likelihood that two individuals taken given the soaring rates of species extinction and human at random are of the same species. However, they tend to alteration of natural habitats. Perhaps the simplest and de-emphasize uncommon species. most frequently used measure of biological diversity is Species richness measures are typically separated into species richness, the number of species per unit area. A vast measures of a, b and g diversity (Whittaker, 1972). a Di- amount of ecological research has been undertaken using versity (also referred to as local or site diversity) is nearly species richness as a measure to understand what affects, synonymous with small-scale species richness; it is meas- and what is affected by, biodiversity. At the small scale, ured at the local scale and consists of a count of species species richness is generally used as a measure of diversity within a relatively homogeneous area.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Neutrality Evolves Through Local Adaptive Niche Evolution
    Regional neutrality evolves through local adaptive niche evolution Mathew A. Leibolda,1, Mark C. Urbanb, Luc De Meesterc, Christopher A. Klausmeierd,e,f, and Joost Vanoverbekec aDepartment of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; bDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269; cDepartment of Biology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; dKellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060; eDepartment of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060; and fProgram in Ecology, Evolutionary Biology & Behavior, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060 Edited by Nils C. Stenseth, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and approved December 11, 2018 (received for review May 22, 2018) Biodiversity in natural systems can be maintained either because Past theoretical work in this area suggests that, depending on niche differentiation among competitors facilitates stable coexis- assumptions, the effects of local adaptation can either cause com- tence or because equal fitness among neutral species allows for peting species to diverge (17) or converge (18–22) in niche traits, their long-term cooccurrence despite a slow drift toward extinc- facilitating niche partitioning or neutral cooccurrence of species, tion. Whereas the relative importance of these two ecological respectively. This research, however, neglects the regional scale mechanisms has been well-studied in the absence of evolution, the and the process by which communities assemble through re- role of local adaptive evolution in maintaining biological diversity peated colonization, extinction, and competition.Taking this through these processes is less clear. Here we study the contribu- more regional perspective, local adaptive evolution can generate tion of local adaptive evolution to coexistence in a landscape of evolution-mediated priority effects wherein early colonizers adapt to interconnected patches subject to disturbance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Species Di7ersity on Ecosystem Producti7ity: How, Where
    FORUM is intended for new ideas or new ways of interpreting existing information. It FORUM provides a chance for suggesting hypotheses and for challenging current thinking on FORUM ecological issues. A lighter prose, designed to attract readers, will be permitted. Formal research reports, albeit short, will not be accepted, and all contributions should be concise FORUM with a relatively short list of references. A summary is not required. The influence of species di7ersity on ecosystem producti7ity: how, where, and why? Jason D. Fridley, Dept of Biology, CB 3280, Uni7. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280, USA ([email protected]). The effect of species diversity on ecosystem productivity is cism based upon their experimental methodology controversial, in large part because field experiments investigat- (Huston 1997, Hodgson et al. 1998, Wardle 1999), ing this relationship have been fraught with difficulties. Unfortu- analyses (Aarssen 1997, Huston et al. 2000), and gen- nately, there are few guidelines to aid researchers who must overcome these difficulties and determine whether global species eral conclusions (Grime 1998, Wardle et al. 2000). As a losses seriously threaten the ecological and economic bases of result, the nature of the relationship between species terrestrial ecosystems. In response, I offer a set of hypotheses diversity and ecosystem productivity remains unclear. that describe how diversity might influence productivity in plant communities based on three well-known mechanisms: comple- One cause of the diversity-productivity debate, and mentarity, facilitation, and the sampling effect. Emphasis on a reason that this relationship remains controversial, these mechanisms reveals the sensitivity of any diversity-produc- is the lack of clear hypotheses to guide experimental tivity relationship to ecological context (i.e., where this relation- ship should be found); ecological context includes characteristics hypothesis testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Delineating Probabilistic Species Pools in Ecology and Biogeography
    GlobalGlobal Ecology Ecology and and Biogeography, Biogeography, (Global (Global Ecol. Ecol. Biogeogr.) Biogeogr.)(2016)(2016)25, 489–501 MACROECOLOGICAL Delineating probabilistic species pools in METHODS ecology and biogeography Dirk Nikolaus Karger1,2*, Anna F. Cord3, Michael Kessler2, Holger Kreft4, Ingolf Kühn5,6,7,SvenPompe5,8, Brody Sandel9, Juliano Sarmento Cabral4,7, Adam B. Smith10, Jens-Christian Svenning9, Hanna Tuomisto1, Patrick Weigelt4,11 and Karsten Wesche12,7 1Department of Biology, University of Turku, ABSTRACT Turku, Finland, 2Institute of Systematic Aim To provide a mechanistic and probabilistic framework for defining the Botany, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 3Department of Computational species pool based on species-specific probabilities of dispersal, environmental Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for suitability and biotic interactions within a specific temporal extent, and to show Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, how probabilistic species pools can help disentangle the geographical structure of Germany, 4Biodiversity, Macroecology and different community assembly processes. Conservation Biogeography Group, University Innovation Probabilistic species pools provide an improved species pool defini- of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany, tion based on probabilities in conjunction with the associated species list, which 5Department of Community Ecology, explicitly recognize the indeterminate nature of species pool membership for a Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research given focal unit of interest and
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Competition Shapes Biological Rhythms and Promotes Temporal Niche
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.055160; this version posted April 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. 1 2 3 Resource competition shapes biological rhythms and promotes temporal niche 4 differentiation in a community simulation 5 6 Resource competition, biological rhythms, and temporal niches 7 8 Vance Difan Gao1,2*, Sara Morley-Fletcher1,4, Stefania Maccari1,3,4, Martha Hotz Vitaterna2, Fred W. Turek2 9 10 1UMR 8576 Unité de Glycobiologie Structurale et Fonctionnelle, Campus Cité Scientifique, CNRS, University of 11 Lille, Lille, France 12 2 Center for Sleep and Circadian Biology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States of America 13 3Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, University Sapienza of Rome, Rome, Italy 14 4International Associated Laboratory (LIA) “Perinatal Stress and Neurodegenerative Diseases”: University of Lille, 15 Lille, France; CNRS-UMR 8576, Lille, France; Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, 16 Italy 17 18 19 * Corresponding author 20 E-mail: [email protected] 21 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.055160; this version posted April 22, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license.
    [Show full text]
  • Interspecific Competition: • Lecture Summary: • Definition
    BIOS 6150: Ecology Dr. Stephen Malcolm, Department of Biological Sciences • Week 5: Interspecific Competition: • Lecture summary: • Definition. Semibalanus balanoides • Examples. James P. Rowan, http://www.emature.com • Outcomes. • Lotka-Volterra model. Chthamalus stellatus Alan J. Southward, http://www.marlin.ac.uk/ BIOS 6150: Ecology - Dr. S. Malcolm. Week 5: Interspecific Competition Slide - 1 2. Interspecific Competition: • Like intraspecific competition, competition between species can be defined as: • “Competition is an interaction between individuals, brought about by a shared requirement for a resource in limited supply, and leading to a reduction in the survivorship, growth and/or reproduction of at least some of the competing individuals concerned” BIOS 6150: Ecology - Dr. S. Malcolm. Week 5: Interspecific Competition Slide - 2 3. Interspecific competition between 2 barnacle species (Fig. 8.2 after Connell, 1961): “Click for pictures” BIOS 6150: Ecology - Dr. S. Malcolm. Week 5: Interspecific Competition Slide - 3 4. Gause's Paramecium species compete interspecifically (Fig. 8.3): BIOS 6150: Ecology - Dr. S. Malcolm. Week 5: Interspecific Competition Slide - 4 5. Tilman's diatoms exploitation/scramble (Fig. 8.5): BIOS 6150: Ecology - Dr. S. Malcolm. Week 5: Interspecific Competition Slide - 5 6. A caveat: “The ghost of competition past:” • Lack observed 5 tit species in a single British wood: • 4 weighed 9.3-11.4g and 1 weighed 20.0g. • All have short beaks and hunt for insect food on leaves & twigs + seeds in winter. • Concluded that they coexisted because they exploited slightly different resources in slightly different ways. • But is this a justifiable explanation? Did species change or were species eliminated? • Connell (1980) emphasized that current patterns may be the product of past evolutionary responses to competition - “the ghost of competition past” ! BIOS 6150: Ecology - Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Productivity and Species Richness
    P1: FNE/FGO P2: FLI/FDR September 15, 1999 17:9 Annual Reviews AR093-10 Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1999. 30:257–300 Copyright c 1999 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY AND SPECIES RICHNESS R. B. Waide1,M.R.Willig2, C. F. Steiner3, G. Mittelbach4, L. Gough5,S.I.Dodson6,G.P.Juday7, and R. Parmenter8 1LTER Network Office, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1091; e-mail: [email protected]; 2Program in Ecology and Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences & The Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131; e-mail: [email protected]; 3Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, Michigan 49060; e-mail: [email protected]; 4Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, Michigan 49060; e-mail: [email protected]; 5Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0344; e-mail: [email protected]; 6Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; e-mail: [email protected]; 7Forest Sciences Department, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7200; e-mail: [email protected]; 8Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1091; e-mail: [email protected] Key Words primary productivity, biodiversity, functional groups, ecosystem processes ■ Abstract Recent overviews have suggested that the relationship between species richness and productivity (rate of conversion of resources to biomass per unit area per unit time) is unimodal (hump-shaped). Most agree that productivity affects species richness at large scales, but unanimity is less regarding underlying mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relative Importance of the Species Pool
    Journal of Ecology 2008, 96, 937–946 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01420.x TheBlackwell Publishing Ltd relative importance of the species pool, productivity and disturbance in regulating grassland plant species richness: a field experiment Timothy L. Dickson* and Bryan L. Foster Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; The University of Kansas; Lawrence, KS 66045; USA Summary 1. Ecologists have generally focused on how species interactions and available niches control species richness. However, the number of species in the regional species pool may also control richness. Moreover, the relative influence of the species pool and species interactions on plant richness may change along productivity and disturbance gradients. 2. We test the hypothesis that many species from the propagule pool will colonize into habitats of moderate productivity and moderate disturbance, and the number of species in the pool will, therefore, primarily control plant species richness in such habitats. The hypothesis also states that few species from the propagule pool will colonize into habitats of high productivity and minimal disturbance because competitive species interactions primarily control plant richness in such habitats. 3. To test this hypothesis, we experimentally varied resource availability via fertilization and irrigation, the size of the available propagule pool via sowing the seeds of 49 species and disturbance via vegetation clipping. 4. A larger propagule pool increased species richness 80% in the absence of fertilization and the presence of clipping but had no significant effect on richness in the presence of fertilization and the absence of clipping (significant fertilization × clipping × seed addition interaction). Irrigation increased species richness primarily in the absence of fertilization and the presence or clipping (significant fertilization × clipping × irrigation interaction).
    [Show full text]
  • Is Ecological Succession Predictable?
    Is ecological succession predictable? Commissioned by Prof. dr. P. Opdam; Kennisbasis Thema 1. Project Ecosystem Predictability, Projectnr. 232317. 2 Alterra-Report 1277 Is ecological succession predictable? Theory and applications Koen Kramer Bert Brinkman Loek Kuiters Piet Verdonschot Alterra-Report 1277 Alterra, Wageningen, 2005 ABSTRACT Koen Kramer, Bert Brinkman, Loek Kuiters, Piet Verdonschot, 2005. Is ecological succession predictable? Theory and applications. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra-Report 1277. 80 blz.; 6 figs.; 0 tables.; 197 refs. A literature study is presented on the predictability of ecological succession. Both equilibrium and nonequilibrium theories are discussed in relation to competition between, and co-existence of species. The consequences for conservation management are outlined and a research agenda is proposed focusing on a nonequilibrium view of ecosystem functioning. Applications are presented for freshwater-; marine-; dune- and forest ecosystems. Keywords: conservation management; competition; species co-existence; disturbance; ecological succession; equilibrium; nonequilibrium ISSN 1566-7197 This report can be ordered by paying € 15,- to bank account number 36 70 54 612 by name of Alterra Wageningen, IBAN number NL 83 RABO 036 70 54 612, Swift number RABO2u nl. Please refer to Alterra-Report 1277. This amount is including tax (where applicable) and handling costs. © 2005 Alterra P.O. Box 47; 6700 AA Wageningen; The Netherlands Phone: + 31 317 474700; fax: +31 317 419000; e-mail: [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced or published in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system without the written permission of Alterra. Alterra assumes no liability for any losses resulting from the use of the research results or recommendations in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Competition, Predation and Nest Niche Shifts Among Tropical Cavity Nesters: Ecological Evidence
    JOURNAL OF AVIAN BIOLOGY 36: 74Á/83, 2005 Competition, predation and nest niche shifts among tropical cavity nesters: ecological evidence Donald J. Brightsmith Brightsmith, D. J. 2005. Competition, predation and nest niche shifts among tropical cavity nesters: ecological evidence. Á/ J. Avian Biol. 36: 74Á/83. I studied cavity-nesting birds in an undisturbed site in lowland Peru to determine the relative roles of competition and predation in favoring termitarium nesting over tree cavity nesting. Occupancy rates of both nest boxes and natural tree cavities near 2% suggest that competition for tree cavities is not favoring the use of termitaria. Artificial nests and bird nests in termitaria suffer significantly lower predation rates than similar nests in old tree cavities showing that predation is favoring the use of termitaria over old tree cavities. Bird nests in newly excavated tree cavities also show lower predation rates than older cavities suggesting that cavity age is more important than substrate (tree or termitaria) per se. This study suggests that nest predation has a greater influence than nest competition on life history evolution for many cavity-nesting birds. D. J. Brightsmith, Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham NC 27708-0338, E-mail: [email protected] Nest site selection greatly influences avian natural transitions from nesting in tree cavities to nesting in history. Traits like clutch size, nestling period, renesting arboreal termite mounds. These transitions correlated probability, nest initiation date and nest predation rates with an increase in nestling period suggesting that all correlate with nesting niche (Lack 1968, Martin 1995, predation rates in termite mounds are significantly lower Robinson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Title: Population Ecology
    Colorado Teacher-Authored Instructional Unit Sample Science High School - Biology Unit Title: Population Ecology INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT AUTHORS Monte Vista School District Kana Condon Schuyler Fishman Loree Harvey Eric Hotz BASED ON A CURRICULUM OVERVIEW SAMPLE AUTHORED BY Boulder Valley School District Tammy Hearty Jefferson County School District Chalee McDougal Poudre School District Laura Grissom Colorado’s District Sample Curriculum Project This unit was authored by a team of Colorado educators. The template provided one example of unit design that enabled teacher- authors to organize possible learning experiences, resources, differentiation, and assessments. The unit is intended to support teachers, schools, and districts as they make their own local decisions around the best instructional plans and practices for all students. DATE POSTED: MARCH 31, 2014 Colorado Teacher-Authored Sample Instructional Unit Content Area Science Grade Level High School Course Name/Course Code Biology Standard Grade Level Expectations (GLE) GLE Code 1. Physical Science 1. Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation describe the relationships among forces acting on and between SC09-GR.HS-S.1-GLE.1 objects, their masses, and changes in their motion – but have limitations 2. Matter has definite structure that determines characteristic physical and chemical properties SC09-GR.HS-S.1-GLE.2 3. Matter can change form through chemical or nuclear reactions abiding by the laws of conservation of mass and SC09-GR.HS-S.1-GLE.3 energy 4. Atoms bond in different ways to form molecules and compounds that have definite properties SC09-GR.HS-S.1-GLE.4 5. Energy exists in many forms such as mechanical, chemical, electrical, radiant, thermal, and nuclear, that can be SC09-GR.HS-S.1-GLE.5 quantified and experimentally determined 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Niche Differentiation on Coexistence and Community Structure
    From trait patterns to species lifetimes: Effects of niche differentiation on coexistence and community structure by Rafael D’Andrea Rocha A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) in The University of Michigan 2016 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Annette M. Ostling, Chair Professor Bradley Cardinale Professor Deborah E. Goldberg Professor Mercedes Pascual c Rafael D’Andrea Rocha 2016 All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements Annette Ostling, who tirelessly coached and supported me as a PhD student. Annette made a point to be always available for feedback on my work, even when she had tons of other things to do, which was all the time. She pushed me on when I faltered but was always friendly and never talked down to me. We collaborated closely—and intensely—on the papers we co-wrote. Her academic and financial support made possible my participation at numerous events that advanced my PhD career, including nine conferences, two courses and workshops, and two visits during her sabbatical year. She hired me twice as a GSI for her General Ecology class, which was an important learning experience, and also great fun. She introduced me to other ecologists, including James O’Dwyer, whose lab I will be joining after completing my PhD. Besides being there as my mentor and advisor, Annette doubled down as a friend and confidante. I am immensely grateful for the considerable amount of time and effort Annette dedicated to helping me during my five or six years at EEB. I would not be here without her.
    [Show full text]