Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Storage effect wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Unified neutral theory of biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Evolutionary Ecology, 1993, 7, 142-154 Competition theory and the structure of ecological communities F. A . H O P F t Optical Sciences Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA T H O M A S J. V A L O N E and J A M E S H . B R O W N * Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA Summary We develop a theory of competition based on two mechanisms that we call the cost of rarity (Mechanism R) and the cost of commonness (Mechanism C). These reduce the rate of population increase only at high densities (asexual organisms) or both at high and low densities (sexual species). The theory predicts that, in certain circumstances, the number of coexisting species in any assemblage will be finite and that these species will differ in their utilization of resources (and in associated morphological traits) more than expected by chance. Specifically, it predicts such nonrandom assortment in assemblages of three or more (i.e. multispecies) sexual species, especially in those communities where a few species are numerically dominant, but not in two-species associations and not in asexual forms. Unlike other theories, however, ours does not predict any specific value of morphological ratio or limiting similarity. We develop procedures to assess the degree of numerical dominance in an assemblage, and then test the predictions of the theory using data on morphological size ratios. The tests yield results that are consistent with the theory. Our analysis of multispecies assemblages of granivorous rodents, bird-eating hawks, Anolis and sexual Cnemidophoruslizards, show that in these assemblages very small ratios are observed less often than expected by chance. Coexisting asexual Cnemidophoruslizards tend to be extremely similar in size. Nesting sparrow and flycatcher assemblages exhibit low numerical dominance which we predict will inhibit detection of regular assortment, and we find no regular pattern in these assemblages. Finally, we fail to detect regular assortment in most two-species associations as expected. We examine several alternative mechanisms that might account for morphological segregation among coexisting species but find little evidence that they have been important. Keywords: competition; body size ratio; statistical analysis; coexistence; community morphological assortment; limiting similarity; cost of rarity; cost of commonness; stochastic extinction; dominance; standardization Introduction Since Lack (1947) and Hutchinson (1959) called attention to the apparently n o n r a n d o m ratios of morphological traits of ecologically similar, sympatric species, ecologists have speculated about the effects of interspecific competition on community structure and coexistence. Since Gause's (1934) principle of competitive exclusion had claimed that two species with identical requirements could not persist indefinitely in the same environment, ecologists began to ask how similar t A rough draft of the manuscript was completed before F. A. Hopf's untimely death. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. 0269-7653 © 1993 Chapman & Hall Competition and c o m m u n i t y structure 143 two species could be and still coexist stably. MacArthur and Levins' (1967) theory of limiting similarity attempted to provide a mathematical solution to this problem. Like many of the early theories of pairwise species interaction, this one was soon shown to be too sensitive to its mathematical assumptions to provide a robust answer to the problem (e.g. May and MacArthur, 1972; May, 1973, 1978; Stewart and Levin, 1973; Abrams, 1975, 1984; Armstrong and McGehee, 1980; Chesson and Warner, 1981; Turelli, 1981; Chesson, 1986). While theoretical studies have explored the mathematics of competitive interactions without providing a general solution (Abrams, 1983), empirical studies have continued to supply evidence that assemblages of ecologically similar, coexisting species are often comprised of species that are more different from each other in their body sizes or dimensions of trophic appendages than would be expected by chance (e.g. Schoener, 1970, 1984; Brown, 1973; Grant and Abbott, 1980; Bowers and Brown, 1982; Case, 1983; Brown and Bowers, 1985; Losos et al., 1987; Taper and Case, 1993a,b; but see Simberloff and Boecklen, 1981; Simberloff, 1984). Thus, while the inductive proposition that morphological differences reduce competition and promote coexistence has been supported, we still lack a theoretical basis for predicting a priori the effects of competition on the morphology of coexisting species. In this paper, we develop a theory of competition that predicts when coexisting species should differ from each other more than is expected by chance. We build on ideas about the commonness and rarity of species introduced by MacArthur (1960), Preston (1962), and Williams (1964). Our treatment is an extension of a theory developed by Hopf and Hopf (1985; see also Hopf, 1990). These authors showed how a 'cost of rarity', that is a necessary consequence of sexual reproduction, results in the clustering of individual organisms into discrete species that are evenly dispersed along a resource axis, even when the resources themselves are distributed continuously along this axis. Here we show how an additional 'cost of commonness' may influence our ability to detect structure in ecological assemblages. We are concerned primarily with the role of interspecific competition in producing larger than expected differences among species in resource utilization or in related morphological traits, which we shall refer to as a regular assortment pattern. We develop the concept of numerical dominance to provide an operational measure of the magnitude of the cost of commonness within a community. This allows us to predict the circumstances in which regular assortment patterns are most likely to be observed. Unlike earlier theories (e.g. MacArthur and Levins, 1967; May, 1973), our theory does not predict any specific value of limiting similarity. Instead, we predict the situations in which the differences between species in resource utilization or in related morphological traits will be larger than expected by chance. We present a preliminary evaluation of the predictions by analysing the ratios of morphological traits in assemblages of (i) asexual organisms, (ii) sexual organisms in which a few species dominate the community numerically, and (iii) sexual organisms in which abundances are relatively evenly distributed among species. The theory The theory developed here is an extension of the non-mathematical model of Bernstein et al. (1986) and the formalization of Hopf and Hopf (1985). The latter is based on a generalized form of MacArthur's (1972) model for multiple consumer species with overlapping requirements for heterogeneous resources. Population growth of species i is described by Equation 1 dNi T = biai (Ni)fi(Ri)Ni - diNi (1) Hopf, Valone and Brown 144 where Ni is adult density and Ri is the set of resources used by competitor i for reproduction and survival through the function 1], which is unity in the limit of abundant resources, ai(Ni) regulates reproduction and mortality in a manner independent of competitors and is unity when no such regulation occurs, bi is a coefficient such that the quantity bi ai(Ni) )~(Ri) is the rate of production of new breeding individuals. We loosely refer to this as reproduction, but the process includes the mortality of individuals that have not yet joined the adult breeding population, d i is the coefficient describing the mortality of breeding individuals. Equation 1 departs from most conventional models (e.g. Roughgarden, 1979), because of the inclusion of parameter ai. We allow a i to be a function of Ni, so that population growth can be limited at both high and low densities. Our model is a more general formulation of MacArthur (1972), which uses a special case of Equation 1 in which ai(Ni) = 1. When ai(Ni) = 1, and all species have the same b's, d's andf()'s, but different Ris, the equilibrium number of species in the community equals the number of resources (e.g. MacArthur, 1972; Levins, 1979). If we assume that the niche of each species represents requirements for a unique combination of biotic and abiotic variables, so that the niche can be defined in terms of location along axes of continuous variables, then the number of niches potentially available can approach infinity. In such a scenario, Hopf and Hopf (1985) show that as the total number of individuals of all species (Y~Ni) approaches infinity, the number of species (S) in the community will also approach infinity. Hopf (1990) has verified that the specific value of the limiting similarity derived by MacArthur and Levins (1967) is an artifact of the special assumptions of their model (see also Abrams, 1983). In the kind of Malthusian system represented in Equation 1, no specific values of niche separation can be derived for communities where S = 3 or for any other value of S. While such a result seems biologically unrealistic, Hopf and Hopf (1986) demonstrate it in a non-living competitive system. The cost of rarity Hopf and Hopf's (1985) solution to the problem of limitless proliferation in biological systems is to assume that ai (Ni) is of the form sketched in Fig. 1. This function is roughly constant, but it decreases at both low and high densities by the action of Mechanisms that we denote as R and C, respectively. Mechanism R, the cost of rarity, and Mechanism C, the cost of commonness, have the consequence of imposing lower and upper bounds, respectively, on the density, Ni, at equilibrium. Hopf and Hopf (1985) show that Mechanism R robustly yields a finite number of species, even when the number of potential n~ches approaches infinity. What are costs of rarity? Sexual reproduction has many consequences that act, directly or R a(Ni) I° 0 C Ni Figure 1. The relationship between regulation of reproduction and mortality, parameterized as ai (Ni), and adult population density, Ni. The function decreases at low and high densities (shaded regions) due to Mechanisms R (costs of rarity) and C (costs of commonness), respectively. Competition and community structure 145 indirectly, as a cost of rarity (Bernstein et al., 1986). Indeed, all other Allee effects (Dennis, 1989), including population-specific mutualisms or obligate social interactions (e.g., flocking in birds), impose a cost of rarity. Thus, the theory predicts that communities of organisms subject to a cost of rarity (including all sexual organisms) should be comprised of distinct species with differences in resource use that are greater than expected by chance; i.e. these assemblages should exhibit an assortment pattern. Hopf (1990) has shown, however, that in communities composed of only two species (species pairs) the detectability of the assortment pattern depends strongly on species density. The assortment pattern will be strong only when population densities of both species are low. Detectability of an assortment pattern is not a problem when communities contain greater than two species (Hopf, 1990). Asexual organisms, on the other hand, have no cost of rarity. Thus assemblages of parthenogens should behave like the non-living system in Hopf and Hopf (1986) and show no robust pattern of assortment. The cost of commonness Mechanism C, the cost of commonness, imposes an upper bound on the density of a particular species in a manner independent of interspecific competition. Examples of such a mechanism include many kinds of density-dependent predator-prey, plant-herbivore, and host-pathogen interactions (e.g. Janzen, 1970; Ricklefs and O'Rourke, 1975; Holt, 1984). If Mechanism C acts strongly on an association, it can prevent the detection of an assortment pattern. To see this, consider first an association at equilibrium in which a Mechanism R, but no Mechanism C, is operating. Next, turn on a Mechanism C, and make it act strongly enough that population density for each species is substantially reduced. As a result, fewer resources are consumed by the existing species. The increased resource level allows another set of species, previously excluded from the assemblage, to use the same range of resources and hence to invade the community. The species that will survive and coexist will depend largely on the history of the sets. Whilst the species within any one set may exhibit assortment rules relative to other members of the same set, their properties of resource utilization will tend to be distributed at random with respect to members of the other set. Hopf (1990) shows that if Mechanism C is strong enough to increase the number of species by a factor of 1.5 - 2, then the resulting asssortment pattern will be difficult to detect. The only mechanism left to generate patterns in associations where C is strong is local (i.e. within community) character adjustment. Our use of average morphologies to characterize entire species over large regions largely prohibits testing for character adjustments. Thus, patterns we can observe are restricted to assortment effects, and these are predicted to occur only if Mechanism C is weak or absent. Thus, while the theory does not require that we identify the specific factor C that may act on a particular community, it will be important to determine the strength of Mechanism C in the associations studied. All Cs should have the effect of reducing the density of the commoner species relative to the density of the rarer ones (e.g. Glasser, 1979). To assess the strength of C on a community, we define an association as having high numerical dominance if it contains a few species that are very abundant and consistently present (core species of Hanski, 1982) and many species that are rare and ephemeral (satellite species). Since C reduces numerical dominance, we can assess the strength of C by measuring the relative abundances of species in the community. Communities experiencing a strong C will exhibit low numerical dominance while those experiencing a weak C will exhibit high numerical dominance. 146 Hopf, Valone and Brown Preliminary evaluation of the theory Measuring the cost of commonness We measure the strength of a Mechanism C on a community by examining the relative (fractional) abundances of each species. Assemblages that contain a few abundant and many rare species are said to exhibit high numerical dominance. Assemblages in which most species are relatively equally abundant are said to exhibit low dominance. Numerical measures of dominance depend on the total number of species in the assemblage (S). Most such measures can be said to be biased estimators, because the number of species counted empirically is often less than the number, S, actually present (Pielou, 1977; Lloyd and Ghelardi, 1965; Hopf and Brown, 1986). Sampling of few individuals at a site (small sample size) will tend to underestimate S (Preston, 1962), and the magnitude of this bias will increase with increased numerical dominance. Therefore, when a sample of an assemblage appears to exhibit low dominance, we need to be able to determine whether this is due to undersampling an assemblage with high dominance or to true reduced dominance. To do this we follow the method of Hopf and Brown (1986) for obtaining a quantitative measure of the relative abundances of species that is independent of the total number of species in an assemblage. Their method can be used to calculate an Sindependent measure of dominance from the value of Simpson's (1949) diversity index. Numerical dominance (D) is expressed as a score, that can range from 1 - 20, for each community. Communities of low dominance (even distribution of abundances) will yield low scores, communities of high dominance will give high scores, and communities with a random distribution of abundances among species will give a uniform random distribution of Ds. We illustrate the application of this method and the bias that can come from undersampling using extensive census data that are available for breeding and wintering assemblages of North American ducks (see Appendix 1). These are suitable for this purpose because there are censuses of numerous sites during both nesting and wintering seasons, and some of these include very large numbers of individuals so they should be relatively free of undersampling bias. In Fig. 2 we show that when the samples include large numbers of individuals, scores for the winter assemblages cluster tightly around 20, but those for the nesting communities are much more evenly distributed. Samples of both nesting and wintering assemblages that contain few individuals gave more evenly distributed scores. Note that the winter assemblages exhibited substantially higher dominance than the nesting ones, and that the smaller samples, especially of the winter assemblages, gave a more even distribution of D's than the larger samples. The winter assemblages show that bias from undersampling can cause communities with high dominance to appear to exhibit a much lower degree of dominance. Hopf and Brown (1986) demonstrated a similar effect of undersampling bias by computer simulation, drawing at random small subsamples from a community exhibiting high dominance. Tests Here we provide a brief, preliminary evaluation of the theory by comparing three different kinds of assemblages; (i) asexual species, (ii) sexual species exhibiting low numerical dominance, and (iii) sexual species exhibiting high numerical dominance. We chose these three categories because in the first there is no cost of rarity (no Mechanism R); in the second there is a Mechanism R, but a high cost of commonness (a strong Mechanism C); Competition and community structure 147 30 b) Winter 25 8 '*6 o) Nesting 2O ts I:: to Illlllllllllollilllll $ =,o F~ S c) Nesting Undersomple I.) = [I d) Winter Undersample S ,,,,n n "6 gZ ,,r, . . . . . ,,nII01 I rr)A Z i I Ilol I S S Figure 2. Distribution of scores from the evenness test applied to censuses of nesting and wintering ducks containing different numbers of individuals per site: a) >300, b) >1000, c) < 100, d) 50200. The effect of undersampling is illustrated by the much wider distribution of scores (and correspondingly reduced ability to reject the null hypothesis) for the sites where few individuals were recorded, especially in winter. and in the last there is a Mechanism R, but a weak Mechanism C. Therefore the theory predicts that we should observe assortment patterns only in the last case. Before comparing the theoretical predictions with data, it is necessary to determine the strength of Mechanism C necessary to obscure the effects of competition on assortment patterns. Our method of measuring numerical dominance provides a quantitative assessment of the strength of Mechanism C, but the theory is not yet developed to the stage where we can predict the level of numerical dominance required to observe regular assortment. We can, however, make two qualitative predictions. First, regular assortment patterns should be observed only in assemblages of ecologically similar sexual species (i.e. in the same guild) exhibiting high values of D. Second, there should be a threshold relationship between the level of numerical dominance and assortment. That is, all assemblages above some level of D should show an assortment pattern while those below such level should not. The theory predicts larger than expected differences in resource utilization among coexisting, ecologically similar species. Resource utilization is rarely measured directly, but can be inferred from body size or dimensions of other morphological traits (e.g. Lack, 1947; Hutchinson, 1959). It is the ratios (or the differences in the logarithms) of morphological traits that most accurately reflect differences in resource utilization, because the requirements for resources and the morphological traits used in acquiring and processing resources are allometric functions of body size (Peters, 1983; Calder, 1984). The assessment of regular patterns of assortment is complex. There are many biological and statistical issues involved in the selection of assemblages that are appropriate for analysis and in the statistical methods that are appropriate for detecting nonrandom patterns of assortment. For example, regular assortment patterns can be expressed and tested either as ratios that are more even than expected by chance, or as the tendency of very small ratios to be observed less Hopf, Valone and Brown 148 frequently than expected by chance. We address these issues elsewhere (Hopf et al., in preparation). Here, for simplicity, we use the most rigorous of the methods that we have developed in this preliminary assessment of the theory. We have compiled from the literature data sets on the species composition of local communities and on the relative abundances and morphologies of the species in seven guilds of terrestrial vertebrates (for references and additional details see Appendix 2). These assemblages include granivorous desert rodents, nesting sparrows, nesting flycatchers, bird-eating hawks, Anolis lizards, sexual Cnemidophorus lizards, and assemblages of exclusively asexual (i.e. parthenogenetic) Cnemidophorus lizards. Our theory makes three predictions that can be evaluated using these data: (i) the parthenogenetic assemblages should not show regular assortment patterns; (ii) the two-species assemblages will often not exhibit detectable assortment; (iii) when all sexual assemblages are ranked according to dominance, there should be some value of dominance above which all assemblages exhibit regular assortment and below which all assemblages do not exhibit detectable assortment. Table 1 presents data on the average degree of dominance in these assemblages and the results of the minimum ratio test, subdivided into two categories: two-species assemblages and communities containing three or more species. The data are consistent with all of these predictions. First, all assemblages of asexual Cnemidophorus tended to have significantly smaller ratios than expected by chance. Second, of the other guilds, we failed to detect regular assortment in all two species assemblages except in the hawks. And third, there was a significant correlation between numerical dominance and tendency to avoid small ratios (Spearman rank correlation, Rs = -0.77, p < 0.05). That is, significantly fewer than expected small ratios were observed in multi-species assemblages of all guilds of sexual forms that had as high or higher dominance than the rodents, while we failed to observe regular assortment patterns in the two guilds of sexual animals that exhibited lower dominance than the rodents (Fig. 3). Table 1. Numerical dominance (D) and the results from the test for the tendency to avoid small ratios in the assemblages. Each assemblage is subdivided into two-species associations (S = 2) and multispecies associations (S > 2). g is a quantitative measure of assortment pattern (Hopf et al., in preparation). Negative g values indicate a tendency to avoid small ratios S=2 Assemblage S>2 D ~ p< 2 p< Cnemidophorus lizards 18.8 4.5 0.05 6.5 0.05 Sexual species Nesting sparrows Nesting flycatchers Desert rodents Anolis lizards Cnemidophorus lizards Hawks 15.0 15.6 18.4 19.0 19.1 20.0 -0.5 0 0.1 1.2 0 -2.5 NS NS NS NS NS 0.05 -0.4 1.0 -3.5 -2.1 -2.5 -4.6 Asexual species NS NS 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.001 Competition and community structure 149 2 i I V -4 14 16 18 20 Dominance Figure 3. Relationship between assortment pattern and level of dominance for the six sexually reproducing assemblages analysed (see Table 1). All assemblages with a dominance score above 18 exhibit regular assortment while the two assemblages with a dominance score below 16 exhibit random assortment. Additional data from communities with dominance scores between 16 and 18 are required to determine more precisely the critical level of dominance required to observe regular assortment. Discussion In our analysis of seven terrestrial vertebrate communities, we found that some exhibited strong assortment patterns while others showed no evidence of such patterns. It is especially interesting that, even within a taxon, we find assemblages that differ in the extent to which they exhibit regular assortment patterns. For example, among lizards, Anolis and Cnemidophorus assemblages containing sexual species exhibited strong assortment, while entirely parthenogenetic Cnemidophorus did not; and among birds, bird-eating hawks exhibited a pronounced pattern, while breeding flycatchers did not. In general, these results corroborate those of the investigators who obtained the original data (Schoener, 1970, 1984; Case, 1983). This is not the first demonstration that some assemblages exhibit regular assortment patterns while others do not (e.g. Simberloff and Boecklen, 1981; Bowers and Brown, 1982; Case, 1983; Taper and Case, 1992, 1993). The special feature of the theory proposed above is that it predicts the situations in which we should and should not expect to observe regular assortment patterns based on just two parameters: the cost of rarity and the cost of commonness acting on an assemblage. We are encouraged that the theory fared well in our preliminary tests. The limited data sets that we analysed did not refute any of its predictions. We emphasize, however, the preliminary nature of these results. All of our tests involved communities of terrestrial vertebrates. We see no theoretical reason why the theory should not apply equally well to other kinds of assemblages (e.g. terrestrial invertebrates and plants, and freshwater and marine organisms). There are, suggestions in the literature, however, that populations of some of these organisms are less regulated by resource availability and their community structure may reflect weaker or insignificant influences of interspecific competition (Schoener, 1983). It remains to be seen whether our methods for estimating the relative strengths of Mechanisms R and C will provide a sufficient basis for predicting which of these assemblages will show assortment patterns. To our knowledge, there are three alternative explanations that might impose a cost of rarity, limit the number of species, and cause regular assortment patterns. First, Darwin (1859) in trying to account for the absence of 'missing links' or individuals with attributes intermediate between existing species, suggested that evolution proceeded most rapidly in large populations. Thus, he reasoned that species comprising many individuals would become and remain superior competitors, eliminating any rare intermediate phenotypes that might arise. Second, spite, in which an individual harms conspecific individuals without obtaining any benefit for itself, might be 150 Hopf, Valone and Brown envisioned as an alternative to Allee effects as a possible Mechanism R. We know of no compelling theoretical arguments or empirical data to suggest that either of these mechanisms is important in natural communities. Third, May (1973, 1974) invoked stochastic demographic extinction of rare species populations as a mechanism that might cause coexisting species to exhibit regular assortment patterns. This suggestion has been explored mathematically by Turelli (1981) and H o p f and H o p f (1985; see also Hopf, 1990). These studies concluded that stochastic demographic extinction is unlikely to produce assortment patterns. Thus, Allee effects, which include but are not restricted to costs of rarity due to sexual reproduction, remain the best explanation for the discreteness of species and for the absence of Darwin's missing links. Acknowledgements We thank R. A. Pospahala for providing the duck census data listed in Appendix 1 and those individuals listed in Appendix 2 for sharing their data and insights from the field. B. Dennis and T. W. Schoener contributed valuable discussions during the development of these ideas. S. L. Pimm, M. L. Taper, M. L. Rosenzweig and B. Dennis made helpful comments on the manuscript. During the research and writing T. J. Valone was supported by a N S F - N A T O Postdoctoral Fellowship and J. H. Brown was supported by NSF Grant BSR-8807792. References Abrams, P. A. (1975) Limiting similarity and the form of the competition coefficient. Theor. Popul. Biol. 8, 356-75. Abrams, P. A. (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14, 359-76. Abrams, P. (1984) Variability in resource consumption rates and the coexistence of competing species. Theor. Popul. Biol. 25, 106-24. American Ornithologists' Union (1983) Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC, USA. Armstrong, R. A. and McGehee, R. (1980) Competitive exclusion. Amer. Nat. 115, 151-70. Bernstein, H. C., Byerly, H. C., Hopf, F. A. and Michod, R. E. (1986) Sex and the Emergence of Species. J. Theor. Biol. 117,665-90. Bowers, M. A. and Brown, J. H. (1982) Body size and coexistence of desert rodents: chance or community structure? Ecology 63, 391-400. Brown, J. H. (1973) Species diversity of seed-eating desert rodents in sand dune habitats. Ecology 54,77587. Brown, J. H. and Bowers, M. A. (1985) Community organization in hummingbirds: relationships between morphology and ecology. Auk. 102, 251~9. Calder, W. A. (1984) Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Case, T. J. (1983) Sympatry and size similarity in Cnemidophorus, in Lizard Ecology (R. B. Huey, E. R. Pinaka and T. W. Schoener, eds). pp. 297-325. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Chesson, P. L. (1986) Environmental variation and coexistence of species. In Community ecology (J. Diamond and T. J. Case, eds). pp. 240-56. Harper and Row, NY, USA. Chesson, P. L. and Warner, R. R. (1981) Environmental variability promotes coexistence in lottery competitive systems. Amer. Natur. 117, 923-43. Cuellar, O. (1979) On the ecology of coexistence in parthenogenic and bisexual lizards. Amer. Zool. 19, 773-86. Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species. John Murray, London, UK. Degenhardt, W. G. (1966) A method of counting some diurnal ground lizards of the genera Holbrookia and Cnemidophorus with results from Big Bend National Park. Amer. Mid. Nat. 75, 61-100. Degenhardt, W. G. (1974) A changing environment: documentation of lizards and plants over a decade. In Competition and community structure 151 Transactions of the symposium on the biological resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region, United States and Mexico (R. H. Waver and O. H. Riskind, eds). National Park Service No 3, Washington, DC, USA. Dennis, B. (1989) Allee effects: population growth, critical density, and the chance of extinction. Nat. Res. Model. 3, 481-538. Dunning Jr, J. B. (1984) Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding Association. Monograph No. 1. Eldon, Cave Creek, AZ, USA. Gause, G. F. (1934) The Struggle for Existence. Williams and Wikins, Baltimore, MA, USA. Glasser, J. W. (1979) The role of predation in shaping and maintaining the structure of communities. Amer. Natur. 113, 631-41. Germano, D. J. and Hungerford, C. R. (1981) Reptile population changes with manipulation of Sonoran desert scrub. Great Basin Nat. 41, 129-38. Grant, P. R. and Abbott, I. (1980) Interspecific competition, island biogeography and null hypotheses. Evolution 34, 332-41. Hanski, I. (1982) Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38,210-21. Heilbrun, L. H. (1982) The eighty-second Audubon christmas bird count. Amer. Birds 36, 369-778. Heilbrun, L. H. (1983) The eighty-third Audubon christmas bird count. Amer. Birds 37, 369-806. Holt, R. D. (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. Amer. Nat. 124, 197-229. Hopf, F. A. (1990) Darwin's dilemma of transitional forms: a comparison of a model with data. In Organisational constraints on the dynamics of evolution (J. Maynard-Smith and G. Vida, eds) pp. 357-72. University of Manchester Press, Manchester, UK. Hopf, F. A. and Hopf, F. W. (1985) The role of the Allee effect in species packing. Theor. Pop. Biol. 27, 27-50. Hopf, F. A. and Hopf, F. W. (1986) Darwinian evolution in physics and biology: the dilemma of missing links. In Frontiers of non-equilibrium statistical physics (G. T. Moore and M. O. Scully, eds) pp. 41129. Plenum, NY, USA. Hopf, F. A. and Brown, J. H. (1986) The bull's-eye method for examining randomness in ecological communities. Ecology 67, 1139-55. Hutchinson, G. E. (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia, or Why are there so many kinds of animals? Amer. Nat. 93, 137-45. Janzen, D. H. (1970) Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. Am. Nat. 104, 501-28. Lack, D. (1947) Darwin's Finches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Levins, R. (1979) Coexistence in a variable environment. Amer. Nat. 114, 765-83. Lloyd, M. and Ghelardi, R. J. (1965) A table for calculating the 'equitability' component of species diversity. J. Animal Ecol. 33,217-25. Losos, J. B., Naeem, S. and Colwell, R. K. (1987) Hutchinsonian ratios and statistical power. Evolution 43, 1820-6. MacArthur, R. H. (1960) On the relative abundance of species. Amer. Nat. 94, 25-36. MacArthur, R. H. (1972) Geographical Ecology. Harper and Row, NY, USA. MacArthur, R. H. and Levins, R. (1967) Limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am. Nat. 101,377-85. Martin, F. W., Pospahala, R. R. and Nichols, J. D. (1979) Assessment and population management of North American migratory birds. In Environmental Biomonitoring, Assessment, Prediction, and Management (J. Cairns, G. P. Patil and W. E. Waters, eds) pp. 187-240. International Cooperative Publishing House, Fairfield, MA, USA. May, R. M. (1973) Stability and Complexity it, Model Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N J, USA. May, R. M. (1974) On the theory of niche overlap. Theor. Popul. Biol. 5, 297-332. May, R. Mo (1978) The dynamics and diversity of insect faunas. Sympos. Royal Entolmol. Soc. London 9, 188-204. 152 Hopf, Vatone and Brown May, R. M. and MacArthur, R. H. (1972) Niche overlap as a function of environmental variability. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA 69, 1109-13. Pielou, E. C. (1977) Mathematical Ecology. J. Wiley & Sons, NY, USA. Preston, F. W. (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity, Part I. Ecology 29, 185-215. Ricklefs, R. E. and O'Rourke, K. (1975) Aspect diversity in moths: a temperate-tropical comparison. Evolution 29, 313-24. Roughgarden, J. (1979) Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology. MacMillan, NY, USA. Schoener, T. W. (1970) Size patterns in West Indian Anolis lizards. II. Correlation with sizes of particular sympatric species - displacement and convergence. Am. Nat. 104, 155-74. Schoener, T. W. (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am. Nat. 122, 240-85. Schoener, T. W. (1984) Size differences among sympatric, bird-eating hawks: a worldwide study. In Ecological Communities: Conceptual issues and the Evidence (D. Strong, D. Simberloff, L. G. Abele and A. B. Thistle, eds) pp. 254-81. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA. Simberloff, D. (1984) Properties of coexisting bird species in two archipelagos. In Ecological Communities: conceptual issues and the evidence (D. Strong, D. Simberloff, L. G. Abele and A. B. Thistle, eds) pp. 234-53. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N J, USA. Simberloff, D. and Boecklen, W. (1981) Santa Rosalia reconsidered: size ratios and competition. Evolution 35, 1206-28. Simpson, E. H. (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163, 688. Stewart, F. M. and Levin, B. R. (1973) Partitioning of resources and the outcome of competition: a model and some general considerations. Am. Nat. 107, 244-67. Taper, M. L. and Case, T. J. (1992) Models of character displacement and the theoretical robustness of taxon cycles. Evolution 46, 317-33. Taper, M. L. and Case, T. J. (1993) Coevolution among competitors. Evol. Biol. (in press). Turelli, M. (1981) Niche overlap and invasion of competitors in random environments. I. Models without demographic stochasticity. J. Theor. Biol. 20, 1-56. Walker, J. M. (1966) Morphology, habitat, and behavior of the teiid lizard, Cnemidophorus labial&. Copeia 4, 644-50. Willet, T. and Van Velzen, A. C. (1984) The forty seventh breeding bird census. Amer. Birds 38, 64-129. Williams, C. B. (1964) Patterns in the balance of nature. Academic Press, NY, USA. Appendix 1 Winter duck data Winter data were obtained from the A u d u b o n Christmas count (Heilbrun, 1982). Sites were chosen in salt and freshwater areas and over all of North America. Sites were required to have at least 1000 individual ducks, with at least 90 % identified to species. Sites were rejected if there was any ambiguity of species present. We are interested in uniform habitats and chose sites that often deliberately cross habitats. Most sites were chosen prior to examining data, based on the authors' experience with the areas, in order to minimize the possibility of composite associations. Sites chosen (numbers are as in Heilbrun, 1982): 2 , 1 9 0 , 2 4 4 , 2 5 6 , 2 9 7 , 3 5 9 , 4 2 0 , 4 5 6 , 5 4 0 , 5 4 7 , 556, 675,682, 9 0 9 , 9 5 2 , 9 5 3 , 1038, 1065, 1066, 1128, 1178, 1211, 1229, 1275, 1283, 1339, 1362, 1370. Nesting duck data W e obtained the computer readout of the 1980 United States Fish and Wildlife Service ground survey (that is used to calibrate aerial surveys) from R. A. Phosphahala. The ground surveys cover an area that includes North and South Dakota, eastern Montana, southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (see Martin et al., 1979). All transects that recorded more than one species were used. The sample sizes range up to 1000 individuals per transect. Prior to examining Competition and community structure 153 data all species were accepted in the censuses. After examining the data, however, we discovered that the nesting duck data lacked several species found in the winter data. Thus, we eliminated those species from the winter data to determine this consequence but found no effect on dominance structure. Winter data with small sample sizes The site list for small sample sizes was taken from Heilbrun (1983). A site was chosen if it contained 50 to 200 individuals. Most of these sites are located in northern latitudes. No effort was made to insure uniform habitat. Site list: 11, 23, 32, 33, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 95,114, 167,220,226,252, 257,528,619,628,652, 853,961,963, 1182, 1161, 1173, 1168, 1209, 1321, 1449. Appendix 2 For each group analysed we provide the source of the species lists and the morphological character used. Desert rodents Obtained from Bowers and Brown (1982), all granivore data set. Their site list is contained in the ESA Supplementary Publication Service Document No. 8103. They define the granivore guild, and use averaged body masses obtained from the literature. This list excludes rarities (< 5% of population) on sites. We use the species masses they provide. Hawks Obtained from Schoener (1984), group 2. Morphological data were obtained from Schoener (1984), Appendix I. The character chosen was wing length, averaged over males and females. The associations are inferred from overlap in geographic ranges rather than observed. Nesting flycatchers Assemblages include all species of the family Tyrannidae plus the genus Siales. The set with Tyrannidae alone gives no difference in results. The silky flycatcher Phainopepla nitens is largely frugiverous and was judged not to belong to this group. Our data are primarily from Willet and Van Velzen (1984) and the morphological character was body mass. Site list: 1, 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 25, 27, 33, 46, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 75, 77, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93, 99, 111,113,120, 121,122, 123,124,125,131,135,136, 139,140, 141,143,145,148,170, 172, 178, 185, 187, 189, 193, 199, 204, 207, 208. This survey, however, poorly represents the set of associations in North America insofar as it includes only about half the species. We therefore supplemented the list with other data. We asked various naturalists to provide personal records by choosing sites that best matched the size of the censuses of the breeding bird survey. We obtained the following data: (Source-species list): NAU-26, 29; DC, 37, 31; SM1-7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 29, 30, 33; SM2-6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 22, 29, 30; SM36, 7, 10, 11, 15, 22, 29, 30; SM4-6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 29, 30; SM5-7, 12, 22, 29, 30; SM6-6, 7, 11; SM7-7, 11; SM8-12, 29; SM9-6, 7; SM10-7, 29; SMl1-14, 24, 26; SM12-7, 29, 32; SM13-7, 15, 29, 32; SM14-7, 15, 29; SM15-10, 11; SM16-15, 29; SM17-7, 15, 29, 30; SM18-7, 11, 29; SM196, 7, 10, 12, 29, 30; SM20-6, 7, 15, 29, 30; SM21-6, 7, 10, 15, 29, 30; SM22-7, 29, 30; SM23-6, 11; SM24-7, 11, 15, 29; SM25-6, 7, 10, 17, 30; SM26-6, 10, 17, 30; SM27-15, 29, 30; FH1-2, 3. Sources; DC site from D. Cooley personal records. SM sites from S. Mills censuses. FH site from F. A. Hopf personal records. NAU site from Masters (1979). 154 Hopf, Valone and Brown Numbers identify the following species: 2-Pitangus sulphuratus, 3-Tyrannus couchii, 6Tyrannus vertical&, 7-Tyrannus vociferans, 8-Tyrannus crassirostris, lO-Sayornis nigricans, 11Sayornis saya, 12-Pyrocephalus rubinus, 14-Contopus borealis, 15-Contopus sordidulus, 17Camptostoma imberbe, 22-Ernpidonax traillii, 24-Empidonax oberholseri, 26-Empidonax wrightii, 29-Myiarchus cinerascens, 30-Myiarehus tyrannulus, 31-Myiarchus crinitus, 32Myiarchus tuberculifer, 33-Pachyramphus aglaiae, 37-Tyrannus dominicensis. (Note: all avian names were taken from the American Ornithologists' Union 1983 Check-list). Nesting sparrows Associations include all species of the family Fringillidae and all species of the following genera: Pheucticus, Cardinalis, Guiraca, Cyanocompsa, Passerina, Arremonops, Pipilo, Ammodramus, Pooecetes, Passerculus, Melospiza, Chondestes, Amphispiza, Aimophila, Spizella, Junco, Zonotrichia, Passerella, Melospiza, Calcarius, Plectrophenax, Emberiza, Spiza, Calamospiza, Dolichonyx, Molothrus, and Passer. Data were obtained from Willet and Van Velzen (1984) and the character used was body mass. Site list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 31, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101,102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113,117, 118, 120, 121,123,131,132, 134, 135,136, 137,138, 139, 140, 141, 143,146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151,152, 153, 155,156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,165,166, 167,168, 169, 170, 171,172, 173,175,176, 178, 179, 180, 181,182, 183, 184, 185,186, 187, 188,189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 210. All avian species masses were taken from Dunning (1984). Note: Dunning averaged the masses for Tyrannus couchii and T. melancholius which, at the time of publication, were still considered subspecies. We used this mass for each. This change in species status has no impact on our results. Anolis lizards Site list for trios and quartets obtained from Table 3 of Schoener (1970). We were not able to deduce whether a pair of species found in multispecies assemblages also occur in isolation. Therefore, from Table 1 we extracted all pairs not included in any of the trio or quartet associations. We also constructed test sets in which some of the pairs were assumed to exist in isolation and found that the likelihood of significant bias in the results is small. The morphological characteer used was snout-vent length. Sexual Cnemidophorus lizards Data were obtained from both published work (Degenhardt, 1974: Tortilla; Degenhardt, 1966: largest sample; Germano and Hungerford, 1981: three associations) and by personal communication of unpublished data of A. Price, O. Cuellar, H. Fitch, F. Turner and P. Medica. Morphological character used was snout-vent length. Asexual Cnemidophorus lizards Data were obtained from Cuellar (1979). Five assemblages: San Antonio riparian, Elephant butte riparian (and personal communication), Bosque riparian, San Ildefonso, and the assemblage on p. 780. Morphological character used was snout-vent length. Snout-vent length measurements were taken from Case (1983). Morphological measurements for species not treated in Case (1983) were obtained from Walker (1966) and by personal communication with J. Wright.