pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.00254 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-29 · 🧬 q-bio.PE

Self-organized vegetation patterns promote persistence of plant-pollinator mutualisms under environmental stress

Matheus Bongestab , David Pinto-Ramos , Ricardo Martinez-Garcia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 04:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE
keywords plant-pollinator mutualismspatial pattern formationreaction-diffusion modelecological stabilityenvironmental stressself-organizationmutualism persistencevegetation patterns
0
0 comments X

The pith

Self-organized vegetation patterns enable plant-pollinator mutualisms to persist at weaker interaction strengths and under harsher conditions than uniform populations allow.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests the idea that spatial self-organization stabilizes mutualistic interactions between plants and pollinators. In a reaction-diffusion model with non-local competition among plants and local pollination benefits, pattern formation creates local vegetation density peaks. These peaks support pollinator populations even when global environmental conditions are poor or mutualistic strength is low. The advantage grows stronger as conditions worsen, and strong mutualism cases show multistability between patterned and uniform states that buffers against population swings.

Core claim

Pattern formation triggered by non-local plant competition allows the two-species system to maintain coexistence at mutualistic strengths below the threshold for well-mixed populations, with the stability margin widening under increasing environmental stress because local density maxima sustain the community despite globally unfavorable conditions.

What carries the argument

Two-species reaction-diffusion model combining non-local competition in the plant population with strictly local mutualistic interactions between plants and pollinators.

If this is right

  • Mutualisms persist in environments too harsh for homogeneous populations to survive.
  • The benefit of spatial structure grows as conditions deteriorate.
  • Strong mutualism produces alternative stable states that protect against sudden population drops.
  • Spatial patterns can maintain community persistence where average conditions would otherwise cause collapse.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same spatial mechanism could stabilize other mutualisms in patchy habitats such as forests or grasslands.
  • Removing spatial heterogeneity experimentally should raise the minimum interaction strength needed for persistence.
  • Models that ignore pattern formation may underestimate how mutualisms respond to climate-driven stress.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes plant competition acts over longer distances than the mutualistic benefits from pollinators; if real interactions lack this spatial separation the predicted gain in stability may disappear.

What would settle it

An experiment or simulation in which plant competition is made strictly local instead of non-local, showing that the mutualism threshold for coexistence returns to the well-mixed value even when environmental stress increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.00254 by David Pinto-Ramos, Matheus Bongestab, Ricardo Martinez-Garcia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Phase space of the non-spatial model for the possible regimes: A) obligate mutualism for plants and pollinators and bistability between community collapse and coexistence, β¯ = −0.5; B) obligate mutualism only for plants and bistability between coexistence and plant extinction, β¯ = 0.5; C) obligate mutualism only for plants and monostable coexistence, β¯ = 2.0. Other parameters: α = 5.0, µ¯ = 9.0, 13.0, 1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A) Real part of the largest eigenvalues at different mutualism strengths. The thickest curve highlights the mutualism strength at which patterns form µ¯ ∗ = 13.5. B) α-µ¯ parameter space indicating the regions where populations are uniformly distributed (gray), self-organized into spatial patterns (cyan) or extinct (white). Other parameters: α = 5.0, β¯ = 0.5 3.3 Effect of spatial patterns on community sta… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A, B) Plant (green) and pollinator (orange) bifurcation diagrams. Curves correspond to the non-spatial model, with solid and dashed lines representing stable and unstable steady states, respectively. Symbols correspond to numerical simulations of the spatial model. Circles are obtained starting at µ¯ = 20 and reducing the mutualism strength quasi-adiabatically, whereas crosses are obtained by increasing µ¯… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stability gain, ∆¯µ across worsening environmental conditions for pollinators (decreasing net growth rate β¯) and plants (increasing intraspecific competition α). in the absence of mutualism, whereas ∆¯µ = 0 when µ¯H = ¯µP. We obtained this quantity across different values of plant intraspecific competition, α, and pollinator net growth rate, β¯. ∆¯µ tends to a maximum gain for strong non-local intraspecif… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Mutualisms are key for structuring ecological communities, but they are sensitive to environmental change and fluctuations in population size. Consequently, how mutualisms achieve stability remains an open question in ecological theory. Motivated by previous results in competitive and predator-prey interactions, we hypothesize that self-organized pattern formation can act as a key stabilizing mechanism of mutualistic interactions. We test this hypothesis using a two-species reaction-diffusion model of a plant-pollinator system that incorporates non-local plant competition and local mutualistic interactions. We first perform a linear stability analysis to determine the conditions under which non-local competition can trigger vegetation pattern formation. We then compute the bifurcation diagrams for both spatial and homogeneous solutions and find that pattern formation enables coexistence at mutualistic strengths below the threshold required in well-mixed populations. This stability gain increases as environmental conditions worsen, because local maxima in vegetation density create the conditions for community persistence despite globally harsh conditions. Moreover, in the strong mutualism limit, the spatial system exhibits multistability between patterned and homogeneous solutions, creating alternative stable configurations that can buffer against fluctuations in population abundance. Spatial self-organization thus stabilizes mutualistic communities through spatial patterns, potentially driving plant-pollinator persistence in stressed environments, including arid ecosystems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a two-species reaction-diffusion model for plant-pollinator mutualisms that incorporates non-local competition among plants and strictly local mutualistic interactions. Linear stability analysis identifies Turing instabilities that produce self-organized vegetation patterns. Bifurcation diagrams then compare the spatial system to the corresponding homogeneous ODE model, showing that patterned states permit stable coexistence at mutualistic strengths below the well-mixed threshold. This stability gain increases under harsher environmental conditions because local density maxima satisfy the mutualism requirement despite globally adverse parameters; multistability between patterned and homogeneous states appears in the strong-mutualism regime.

Significance. If the central result is robust, the work supplies a concrete spatial mechanism by which mutualisms can persist under environmental stress, extending earlier pattern-formation arguments from competition and predation to mutualistic systems. The quantitative demonstration that patterned branches extend below the homogeneous threshold, with the advantage widening as conditions deteriorate, offers a falsifiable prediction relevant to arid ecosystems and climate-stressed pollinator networks.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (linear stability analysis): The dispersion relation and the resulting Turing instability that seeds the sub-threshold patterned branches depend on the non-local competition kernel having a characteristic length substantially larger than the local mutualism term. If the mutualism interaction is instead assigned a comparable non-local kernel, or if competition is made local, the instability and the claimed stability gain below the homogeneous threshold are expected to disappear. The manuscript should therefore include at least one additional dispersion-relation calculation or numerical continuation with altered kernel ranges to confirm that the headline result is not an artifact of the specific scale separation.
  2. [§4] §4 (bifurcation diagrams): The central quantitative claim—that patterned solutions remain stable at mutualistic strengths below the homogeneous threshold—is load-bearing for the paper’s conclusion. The diagrams are presented only for the chosen non-local competition kernel; without reported continuation or stability checks for alternative kernels (e.g., Gaussian versus top-hat) or for a fully local competition term, it remains unclear whether the sub-threshold coexistence persists or is eliminated. Adding these controls would directly test the robustness of the stability gain under stress.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase “strong mutualism limit” is invoked without a numerical range or reference to the corresponding parameter regime; a parenthetical definition would aid readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: the homogeneous threshold value should be marked explicitly on the bifurcation diagrams so that the extent of the sub-threshold patterned branch is immediately visible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the robustness analysis in the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have incorporated additional calculations to test the role of kernel scale separation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (linear stability analysis): The dispersion relation and the resulting Turing instability that seeds the sub-threshold patterned branches depend on the non-local competition kernel having a characteristic length substantially larger than the local mutualism term. If the mutualism interaction is instead assigned a comparable non-local kernel, or if competition is made local, the instability and the claimed stability gain below the homogeneous threshold are expected to disappear. The manuscript should therefore include at least one additional dispersion-relation calculation or numerical continuation with altered kernel ranges to confirm that the headline result is not an artifact of the specific scale separation.

    Authors: We agree that the Turing instability and resulting sub-threshold coexistence rely on sufficient scale separation between non-local competition and local mutualism. This separation is biologically justified, as plant competition for water and nutrients typically occurs over larger distances than localized pollination. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection (3.2) containing dispersion-relation calculations for two controls: (i) a non-local mutualism kernel with range comparable to competition, and (ii) fully local competition. In both cases the Turing instability is eliminated and the patterned branches disappear, confirming that the reported stability gain requires the scale separation assumed in the model. These results appear as new Supplementary Figure S3. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (bifurcation diagrams): The central quantitative claim—that patterned solutions remain stable at mutualistic strengths below the homogeneous threshold—is load-bearing for the paper’s conclusion. The diagrams are presented only for the chosen non-local competition kernel; without reported continuation or stability checks for alternative kernels (e.g., Gaussian versus top-hat) or for a fully local competition term, it remains unclear whether the sub-threshold coexistence persists or is eliminated. Adding these controls would directly test the robustness of the stability gain under stress.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee’s emphasis on testing robustness of the bifurcation results. We have extended the numerical continuation to include a Gaussian competition kernel (with range matched to the original top-hat) and a fully local competition case. For the Gaussian kernel the sub-threshold patterned branches and the widening stability gain under stress persist with only quantitative shifts in the bifurcation points. When competition is made local, patterns cease to form and the system recovers the homogeneous threshold, as expected. The new bifurcation diagrams are now shown in revised Figure 4 and Supplementary Figure S4, directly addressing the concern. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation follows directly from PDE analysis

full rationale

The paper constructs a reaction-diffusion model with specified non-local competition and local mutualism kernels, derives the homogeneous coexistence threshold from the corresponding ODE system, then uses linear stability analysis on the PDE to identify Turing bifurcations and computes bifurcation diagrams showing patterned branches extending below that threshold. These steps are obtained by direct substitution into the model equations and standard bifurcation techniques; no parameter is fitted to the target result, no quantity is defined in terms of itself, and no self-citation supplies the load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz. The stability gain is an emergent consequence of the spatial kernels rather than presupposed by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a two-species reaction-diffusion model whose spatial kernels and interaction terms are chosen to represent non-local plant competition and local mutualism; these modeling choices are not derived from first principles within the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • non-local competition kernel width
    Spatial scale over which plants compete; controls whether patterns form and is a tunable parameter in the stability analysis.
  • mutualistic interaction strength
    Parameter varied to locate the coexistence threshold; central to the bifurcation diagrams.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Population dynamics obey reaction-diffusion equations with non-local competition term
    Standard modeling framework for spatial ecology invoked to set up the system.
  • domain assumption Mutualistic interactions are strictly local while competition is non-local
    Biological premise that determines the conditions for pattern formation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5520 in / 1367 out tokens · 60072 ms · 2026-05-17T04:12:17.065179+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We test this hypothesis using a two-species reaction-diffusion model ... non-local plant competition and local mutualistic interactions ... linear stability analysis to determine the conditions under which non-local competition can trigger vegetation pattern formation ... bifurcation diagrams ... pattern formation enables coexistence at mutualistic strengths below the threshold required in well-mixed populations.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    PE(c,Ṽ)=1/(1+cṼ) ... Ṽ(x,t)=1/2∫_{x-R}^{x+R} V(x',t) dx' ... Jacobian ... eigenvalues λ1,2(k)

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The ecology of mutualism

    Boucher DH, James S, Keeler KH. The ecology of mutualism. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1982;13:315-47

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    The stability of mutualism

    Stone L. The stability of mutualism. Nature Communications. 2020;11(1):2648

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Mutualism provides a basis for biodiversity in eco-evolutionary community assembly

    Araujo G, Lurgi M. Mutualism provides a basis for biodiversity in eco-evolutionary community assembly. PLOS Computational Biology. 2025;21(9):e1013402

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Plant–Animal Mutualistic Networks: The Architecture of Biodiver- sity

    Bascompte J, Jordano P. Plant–Animal Mutualistic Networks: The Architecture of Biodiver- sity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2007;38:567-93

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    The nested assembly of plant–animal mutu- alistic networks

    Bascompte J, Jordano P, Melián CJ, Olesen JM. The nested assembly of plant–animal mutu- alistic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003;100(16):9383-7

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Photosymbiosis and the evolution of modern coral reefs

    Stanley Jr GD. Photosymbiosis and the evolution of modern coral reefs. Science. 2006;312(5775):857-8

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Evolution of the ’plant-symbiotic’ fungal phylum, Glomeromycota

    Schüßler A, Walker C. Evolution of the ’plant-symbiotic’ fungal phylum, Glomeromycota. In: Pöggeler S, Wöstemeyer J, editors. The Mycota XIV: Evolution of Fungi and Fungal-like Organisms. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 163-85

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Mycorrhizal networks: Mechanisms, ecology and modelling

    Simard SW, Beiler KJ, Bingham MA, Deslippe JR, Philip LJ, Teste FP. Mycorrhizal networks: Mechanisms, ecology and modelling. Fungal Biology Reviews. 2012 Apr;26(1):39-60. Available from:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1749461312000048

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Ecological theory of mutualism: robust patterns of stability and thresholds in two-species population models

    Hale KR, Valdovinos FS. Ecological theory of mutualism: robust patterns of stability and thresholds in two-species population models. Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11(24):17651-71

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Pathways to mutualism breakdown

    Sachs JL, Simms EL. Pathways to mutualism breakdown. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2006;21(10):585-92

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective

    Toby Kiers E, Palmer TM, Ives AR, Bruno JF, Bronstein JL. Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective. Ecology letters. 2010;13(12):1459-74

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Mutualistic interactions and biological invasions

    Traveset A, Richardson DM. Mutualistic interactions and biological invasions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2014;45(1):89-113. 12

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Spatial heterogeneity and ecological models

    Hastings A. Spatial heterogeneity and ecological models. Ecology. 1990;71(2):426-8

    work page 1990

  14. [14]

    Spatialmomentequationsforplantcompetition: Understandingspatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal

    BolkerBM,PacalaSW. Spatialmomentequationsforplantcompetition: Understandingspatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. American Naturalist. 1999;153(6):575-602

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    How spatial structure alters population and community dynamics in a natural plant community

    Turnbull LA, Coomes DA, Purves DW, Rees M. How spatial structure alters population and community dynamics in a natural plant community. Journal of Ecology. 2007;95(1):79-89

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    The effects of spatial heterogeneity in population dynamics

    Cantrell RS, Cosner C. The effects of spatial heterogeneity in population dynamics. Journal of Mathematical Biology. 1991;29:315-38

    work page 1991

  17. [17]

    Evasion of tipping in complex systems through spatial pattern formation

    Rietkerk M, Bastiaansen R, Banerjee S, van de Koppel J, Baudena M, Doelman A. Evasion of tipping in complex systems through spatial pattern formation. Science. 2021;374(6564):eabj0359

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Regular pattern formation in real ecosystems

    Rietkerk M, van de Koppel J. Regular pattern formation in real ecosystems. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2008 Mar;23(3):169-75. Publisher: Elsevier Science Publishers ISBN: 0169-5347. Available from:http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169534708000281

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    Implications of spatial heterogeneity for catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems

    Van Nes EH, Scheffer M. Implications of spatial heterogeneity for catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems. Ecology. 2005 Jul;86(7):1797-807. Available from:http://doi.wiley.com/10. 1890/04-0550

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    Aperiodic Clustered and Periodic Hexagonal Vegetation Spot Arrays Explained by Inhomogeneous Environments and Cli- mate Trends in Arid Ecosystems

    Pinto-Ramos D, Clerc MG, Makhoute A, Tlidi M. Aperiodic Clustered and Periodic Hexagonal Vegetation Spot Arrays Explained by Inhomogeneous Environments and Cli- mate Trends in Arid Ecosystems. Geophysical Research Letters. 2025;52(21):e2025GL118462. _eprint: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2025GL118462. Available from:https://onlin...

    work page doi:10.1029/2025gl118462 2025

  21. [21]

    Spatial structure and chaos in insect population dynamics

    Hassell MP, Comins HN, May RM. Spatial structure and chaos in insect population dynamics. Nature. 1991;353(6341):255-8

    work page 1991

  22. [22]

    Stabilization of species coexistence in spatial models through the aggregation–segregation effect generated by local dispersal and nonspecific local inter- actions

    Detto M, Muller-Landau HC. Stabilization of species coexistence in spatial models through the aggregation–segregation effect generated by local dispersal and nonspecific local inter- actions. Theoretical Population Biology. 2016 Dec;112:97-108. Available from:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580916300508

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Enhanced species coexistence in Lotka-Volterra competition models due to nonlocal interactions

    Maciel GA, Martinez-Garcia R. Enhanced species coexistence in Lotka-Volterra competition models due to nonlocal interactions. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 2021;530:110872. 13

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Non-local interaction effects in models of interacting populations

    Simoy MI, Kuperman MN. Non-local interaction effects in models of interacting populations. Chaos, SolitonsandFractals.2023;167(November2022). ArXiv: 2209.09761Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Spatial Dynamics in Model Plant Communities: What Do We Really Know? The American Naturalist

    Bolker B, Pacala S, Neuhauser C. Spatial Dynamics in Model Plant Communities: What Do We Really Know? The American Naturalist. 2003 Aug;162(2):135-48. Available from: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/376575

    work page doi:10.1086/376575 2003

  26. [26]

    How range res- idency and long-range perception change encounter rates

    Martinez-Garcia R, Fleming CH, Seppelt R, Fagan WF, Calabrese JM. How range res- idency and long-range perception change encounter rates. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 2020;498:110267

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Spatial dynamics of mutualistic interactions

    Amarasekare P. Spatial dynamics of mutualistic interactions. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2004;73(1):128-42

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Pollinator foraging adaptation and coexistence of competing plants

    Revilla TA, Křivan V. Pollinator foraging adaptation and coexistence of competing plants. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160076

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Tipping points emerge from weak mutualism in metacommunities

    Denk J, Hallatschek O. Tipping points emerge from weak mutualism in metacommunities. PLOS Computational Biology. 2024;20(3):e1011899

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Plant spatial aggregation modulates the interplay between plant competition and pollinator attraction with contrasting outcomes of plant fitness

    Hurtado M, Godoy O, Bartomeus I. Plant spatial aggregation modulates the interplay between plant competition and pollinator attraction with contrasting outcomes of plant fitness. Web Ecology. 2023;23(1):51-69

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Vegetation pattern for- mation in semiarid systems without facilitative mechanisms

    Martínez-García R, Calabrese JM, Hernández-García E, López C. Vegetation pattern for- mation in semiarid systems without facilitative mechanisms. Geophysical Research Letters. 2013;40(23):6143-7

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos

    Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos. 2011;120(3):321-6

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    Our current understanding of mutualism

    Bronstein JL. Our current understanding of mutualism. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1994;69(1):31-51

    work page 1994

  34. [34]

    Minimal mechanisms for vegetation patterns in semiarid regions

    Martínez-García R, Calabrese JM, Hernández-García E, López C. Minimal mechanisms for vegetation patterns in semiarid regions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2014;372(2027):20140068

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Mathematical Biology: I

    Murray JD. Mathematical Biology: I. An Introduction. vol. 17. 3rd ed. Springer; 2007. 14

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    When patches grow themselves: from analogy to auto- catalytic processes, the relevance of ecological nucleation for restoration practices

    Michaels TK, Eppinga MB, Bever JD. When patches grow themselves: from analogy to auto- catalytic processes, the relevance of ecological nucleation for restoration practices. Restoration Ecology. 2024 Jan;32(1):e14066. Available from:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1111/rec.14066

    work page doi:10.1111/rec.14066 2024

  37. [37]

    Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism

    Holling CS. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. The Canadian Entomologist. 1959;91(7):385-98

    work page 1959

  38. [38]

    A consumer–resource approach to the density-dependent popula- tion dynamics of mutualism

    Holland JN, DeAngelis DL. A consumer–resource approach to the density-dependent popula- tion dynamics of mutualism. Ecology. 2010;91(5):1286-95

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    Mutualistic networks: moving closer to a predictive theory

    Valdovinos FS. Mutualistic networks: moving closer to a predictive theory. Ecology Letters. 2019;22(9):1517-34. Appendices A Linear stability analysis of the spatial model We start from the dimensionless version of the model equations (2.5)-(2.6) where we leave the establishment probability implicit ∂v(x, t) ∂t =(1−v)vpP e(˜v, α)−v+ Dv∇2v,(A.1) ∂p(x, t) ∂...

    work page 2019