pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.06640 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-06 · 🧬 q-bio.PE · cond-mat.stat-mech

Habitat heterogeneity and dispersal network structure as drivers of metacommunity dynamics

Davide Bernardi , Alice Doimo , Giorgio Nicoletti , Prajwal Padmanabha , Andrea Rinaldo , Samir Suweis , Sandro Azaele , Amos Maritan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 06:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords metacommunity dynamicshabitat heterogeneitydispersal networksspecies coexistencemetapopulation capacitycoarse-grainingfinite-size scalingecological networks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Heterogeneous habitats support stable species coexistence only above a critical level of variation, while uniform landscapes allow only a fragile, fine-tuned balance.

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

The paper builds a method to reduce detailed individual movements and births and deaths on any habitat network into simpler equations that still track how species spread and compete. In uniform settings the equations show that two or more species can avoid one taking over only when parameters sit at an exact balance point that is easily disrupted. When habitats differ enough in quality, the same equations prove that stable coexistence becomes possible once the differences cross a sharp threshold. The reduction also yields exact predictions for how long small populations survive before extinction and how their numbers fluctuate. Readers care because the results give testable links between local rules, landscape shape, and the number of species that can persist together.

Core claim

Starting from individual rules on arbitrary dispersal networks, the authors obtain an effective dispersal kernel that folds local birth-death rates and network connections into a single object. This kernel yields exact persistence conditions: in uniform habitats the classic metapopulation capacity is necessary but insufficient for multi-species survival, which occurs only in a marginally stable state; in heterogeneous habitats stable coexistence appears only when spatial variation exceeds a critical value. Stochastic versions of the reduced model further produce universal scaling relations for extinction times in finite populations.

What carries the argument

The effective dispersal kernel that combines microscopic birth-death parameters with network topology to produce coarse-grained metapopulation equations.

If this is right

  • In homogeneous environments, multiple species coexist only in a fine-tuned, marginally stable state.
  • Heterogeneous habitats permit stable coexistence once variation exceeds a calculable critical level.
  • Finite carrying capacities produce universal scaling laws for extinction times and population fluctuations.
  • The generalized metapopulation capacity accounts for spatially varying local extinction rates.
  • Further processes such as predation or mutualism can be added inside the same coarse-graining procedure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The critical heterogeneity threshold could be estimated from field maps of habitat quality to forecast whether a real fragmented landscape will sustain multiple species.
  • Small-scale experiments that systematically vary patch quality could directly test the predicted switch from marginal to stable coexistence.
  • The same kernel construction might be used to compare persistence under different network topologies, such as river networks versus random patches.
  • Climate-driven changes in habitat contrast could be inserted into the model to predict shifts in the critical threshold.

Load-bearing premise

That the full individual-level dynamics on any network can be exactly reduced to metapopulation equations whose dispersal kernel still carries all necessary information about persistence and coexistence.

What would settle it

Stable coexistence observed in a homogeneous network or in a heterogeneous network whose measured variation lies below the analytically derived critical threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06640 by Alice Doimo, Amos Maritan, Andrea Rinaldo, Davide Bernardi, Giorgio Nicoletti, Prajwal Padmanabha, Samir Suweis, Sandro Azaele.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Sketch of the model. We consider the dynamics of a settled population, which resides in habitat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a–b) Comparison of stochastic trajectories from the effective quasi-stationary SDE Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Visualization of the microscopic model with multiple species competing for space or a common [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Fine-tuned fragile coexistence in homogeneous environments. Time evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Analytical phase diagram of coexistence regions with mean-field dispersion in heterogeneous habitats. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fraction of coexisting species as a function of habitat disorder (a) and species heterogeneity (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Spatial structure and species interactions jointly shape the dynamics and biodiversity of ecological systems, yet most theoretical models either neglect spatial heterogeneity or sacrifice analytical tractability. Here, we provide a unified microscopic, mechanistic framework for deriving effective metapopulation and metacommunity models from individual-based ecological dynamics on arbitrary dispersal networks. The resulting coarse-grained description features an effective dispersal kernel that encodes both microscopic dynamical parameters and network topology. Based on this framework, we demonstrate exact analytical results for species persistence in both homogeneous and heterogeneous landscapes, including a generalization of the classical concept of metapopulation capacity to non-uniform local extinction rates. Incorporating stochasticity arising from finite carrying capacities, we obtain a reduced one-dimensional description that reveals universal finite-size scaling laws for extinction times and fluctuations. Extending the approach to multiple competing species, we prove that in homogeneous environments monodominance can be avoided only in a fine-tuned, marginally stable coexistence state, and that the classic metapopulation capacity gives only a necessary but not sufficient condition for persistence. We demonstrate that heterogeneous habitats can support stable coexistence, but only above a critical level of heterogeneity. Finally, we outline how additional ecological processes can be systematically incorporated within the same formalism. Together, these results provide analytical benchmarks and a general route for constructing spatially explicit ecological theories based on an interpretable underlying mechanistic foundation.

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 paper develops a unified microscopic framework deriving effective metapopulation and metacommunity models from individual-based dynamics on arbitrary dispersal networks. The coarse-grained description features an effective dispersal kernel encoding microscopic parameters and network topology. It claims exact analytical results for persistence in homogeneous and heterogeneous landscapes, a generalization of metapopulation capacity to non-uniform extinction rates, universal finite-size scaling laws for extinction times and fluctuations under stochasticity from finite carrying capacities, and that heterogeneous habitats support stable coexistence only above a critical heterogeneity level. In homogeneous settings, monodominance is avoided only in a fine-tuned marginally stable state, with metapopulation capacity necessary but not sufficient for persistence.

Significance. If the derivations are exact and free of hidden approximations, the work provides a valuable mechanistic foundation for spatial ecology, yielding analytical benchmarks and a systematic route to incorporate additional processes. The universal scaling laws and critical heterogeneity threshold for coexistence would serve as testable predictions, while the generalization of metapopulation capacity strengthens the framework's applicability. The emphasis on first-principles coarse-graining from individual rules is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim that heterogeneous habitats support stable coexistence only above a critical heterogeneity level (abstract) rests on the effective metapopulation model being an exact coarse-graining of the microscopic individual-based process. The derivation of the dispersal kernel must be shown to encode arbitrary network topology and non-uniform local extinction rates without closure approximations, particularly when stochasticity from finite carrying capacities and multi-species competition are included; otherwise the location of the threshold is not guaranteed to match true microscopic dynamics.
  2. In the section deriving results for homogeneous environments, the statement that monodominance is avoided only in a fine-tuned, marginally stable coexistence state and that the classic metapopulation capacity is necessary but not sufficient requires explicit confirmation that no mean-field steps were used in the reduction to the one-dimensional description, as any such step would undermine the 'exact analytical results' asserted in the abstract.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'universal finite-size scaling laws' but the main text should state the explicit scaling exponents and functional forms (e.g., for mean extinction time versus system size) to allow immediate comparison with simulations.
  2. Notation for the effective dispersal kernel should be introduced once with a clear table of symbols mapping microscopic rates to kernel parameters, to improve readability across the derivations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the text to explicitly highlight the exact nature of the derivations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that heterogeneous habitats support stable coexistence only above a critical heterogeneity level (abstract) rests on the effective metapopulation model being an exact coarse-graining of the microscopic individual-based process. The derivation of the dispersal kernel must be shown to encode arbitrary network topology and non-uniform local extinction rates without closure approximations, particularly when stochasticity from finite carrying capacities and multi-species competition are included; otherwise the location of the threshold is not guaranteed to match true microscopic dynamics.

    Authors: We agree on the importance of establishing exactness. The effective dispersal kernel is derived by exact summation over all possible individual dispersal transitions on the network, with the adjacency matrix entering directly to capture arbitrary topology and non-uniform extinction rates appearing explicitly in the local terms. For stochasticity due to finite carrying capacities, the reduction employs exact first-moment equations that close without approximation because dispersal is linear. The same exact projection applies to multi-species competition. The critical heterogeneity threshold is therefore a direct, approximation-free consequence of this mapping. We have added a new subsection (Section 2.3) and an appendix that walks through these steps in detail. revision: yes

  2. Referee: In the section deriving results for homogeneous environments, the statement that monodominance is avoided only in a fine-tuned, marginally stable coexistence state and that the classic metapopulation capacity is necessary but not sufficient requires explicit confirmation that no mean-field steps were used in the reduction to the one-dimensional description, as any such step would undermine the 'exact analytical results' asserted in the abstract.

    Authors: No mean-field approximations are used. In homogeneous environments the reduction to the one-dimensional description is obtained by an exact spectral projection onto the principal eigenvector of the dispersal matrix; all orthogonal modes decouple exactly due to the uniformity of the landscape. The marginal stability and the fact that metapopulation capacity is necessary but not sufficient follow directly from the resulting eigenvalue problem. We have revised the relevant paragraph in Section 3.2 to state this explicitly and have added a short proof in the supplementary material confirming the absence of any averaging steps. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained with no circular reductions

full rationale

The paper presents a mechanistic derivation of effective metapopulation models from individual-based dynamics on arbitrary dispersal networks, yielding an interpretable dispersal kernel that encodes microscopic parameters and topology. It then obtains exact analytical results for persistence, a generalized metapopulation capacity, finite-size scaling, and a critical heterogeneity threshold for stable coexistence in multi-species settings. No quoted step reduces a prediction to a fitted input by construction, invokes a self-citation as the sole justification for a uniqueness claim, or renames a known result as a new derivation. The coarse-graining is asserted to be exact and first-principles, supplying independent content for the subsequent biodiversity results rather than presupposing them.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that individual-based dynamics admit an exact coarse-graining to effective models; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Individual-based ecological dynamics on arbitrary dispersal networks can be exactly coarse-grained to effective metapopulation models with an interpretable dispersal kernel
    This is the foundational step invoked to obtain all subsequent analytical results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5561 in / 1277 out tokens · 50004 ms · 2026-05-16T06:46:50.853349+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.

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

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. A. Levin, The problem of pattern and scale in ecology, Ecology73, 1943 (1992)

    work page 1943

  2. [2]

    Tilman, Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats, Ecology75, 2 (1994)

    D. Tilman, Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats, Ecology75, 2 (1994)

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    S. A. Levin, Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity, Ecosystems3, 498 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Hanski and O

    I. Hanski and O. Ovaskainen, The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape., Nature404, 755 (2000)

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Mouquet and M

    N. Mouquet and M. Loreau, Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis, The American Naturalist159, 420 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Chave, H

    J. Chave, H. Muller-Landau, and S. Levin, Comparing classical community models: Theoretical conse- quences for patterns of diversity, American Naturalist159, 1 (2002). 23

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Di Musciano, V

    M. Di Musciano, V. Di Cecco, F. Bartolucci, F. Conti, A. R. Frattaroli, and L. Di Martino, Dispersal ability of threatened species affects future distributions, Plant Ecology221, 265 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    M. F. Diniz, S. A. Cushman, R. B. Machado, and P. De Marco Junior, Landscape connectivity modeling from the perspective of animal dispersal, Landscape Ecology35, 41 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    S.-C. Chen, P. Poschlod, A. Antonelli, U. Liu, and J. B. Dickie, Trade-off between seed dispersal in space and time, Ecology Letters23, 1635 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    L. H. Loke and R. A. Chisholm, Unveiling the transition from niche to dispersal assembly in ecology, Nature618, 537 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Marrec, I

    L. Marrec, I. Lamberti, and A.-F. Bitbol, Toward a universal model for spatially structured populations, Physical Review Letters127, 218102 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Abbara and A.-F

    A. Abbara and A.-F. Bitbol, Frequent asymmetric migrations suppress natural selection in spatially struc- tured populations, PNAS Nexus2, pgad392 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    M. K. Denk-Lobnig and K. B. Wood, Spatial population dynamics of bacterial colonies with social antibi- otic resistance, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2417065122 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Allesina and S

    S. Allesina and S. Tang, Stability criteria for complex ecosystems, Nature483, 205 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    F. Roy, M. Barbier, G. Biroli, and G. Bunin, Complex interactions can create persistent fluctuations in high-diversity ecosystems, PLoS computational biology16, e1007827 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Altieri, F

    A. Altieri, F. Roy, C. Cammarota, and G. Biroli, Properties of equilibria and glassy phases of the random lotka-volterra model with demographic noise, Physical Review Letters126, 258301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    J. W. Baron, T. J. Jewell, C. Ryder, and T. Galla, Breakdown of random-matrix universality in persistent lotka-volterra communities, Physical Review Letters130, 137401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Poley, J

    L. Poley, J. W. Baron, and T. Galla, Generalized lotka-volterra model with hierarchical interactions, Physical Review E: Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics107, 024313 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    I. A. Hatton, O. Mazzarisi, A. Altieri, and M. Smerlak, Diversity begets stability: Sublinear growth and competitive coexistence across ecosystems, Science383, eadg8488 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    D´ ıaz, J

    S. D´ ıaz, J. Fargione, F. S. Chapin, and D. Tilman, Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being, PLoS Biology4, e277 (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Tilman, M

    D. Tilman, M. Clark, D. R. Williams, K. Kimmel, S. Polasky, and C. Packer, Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention, Nature546, 73 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Isbell, A

    F. Isbell, A. Gonzalez, M. Loreau, J. Cowles, S. D´ ıaz, A. Hector, G. M. Mace, D. A. Wardle, M. I. O’Connor, J. E. Duffy,et al., Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales, Nature546, 65 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Bascompte and R

    J. Bascompte and R. V. Sol´ e, Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds in spatially explicit models, Journal of Animal Ecology , 465 (1996)

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    Hanski,Metapopulation Ecology(Oxford Univ

    I. Hanski,Metapopulation Ecology(Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1999)

    work page 1999

  25. [25]

    Reichenbach, M

    T. Reichenbach, M. Mobilia, and E. Frey, Mobility promotes and jeopardizes biodiversity in rock–paper–scissors games, Nature448, 1046 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    L. J. Gilarranz and J. Bascompte, Spatial network structure and metapopulation persistence, Journal of Theoretical Biology297, 11 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    J. W. Baron and T. Galla, Dispersal-induced instability in complex ecosystems, Nature communications 11, 6032 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    M. Tejo, C. Qui˜ ninao, R. Rebolledo, and P. A. Marquet, Coexistence, dispersal and spatial structure in metacommunities: a stochastic model approach, Theoretical Ecology14, 279 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    F. Wu, Y. Ha, A. Weiss, M. Wang, J. Letourneau, S. Wang, N. Luo, S. Huang, C. T. Lee, L. A. David, and L. You, Modulation of microbial community dynamics by spatial partitioning, Nature Chemical Biology 18, 394 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    E. E. Holmes, M. A. Lewis, J. E. Banks, and R. R. Veit, Partial differential equations in ecology: Spatial interactions and population dynamics, Ecology75, 17 (1994)

    work page 1994

  31. [31]

    Cantrell and C

    R. Cantrell and C. Cosner, Diffusion models for population dynamics incorporating individual behavior at boundaries: Applications to refuge design, Theoretical Population Biology55, 189 (1999)

    work page 1999

  32. [32]

    M. A. Leibold, M. Holyoak, N. Mouquet, P. Amarasekare, J. M. Chase, M. F. Hoopes, R. D. Holt, J. B. Shurin, R. Law, D. Tilman,et al., The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology, Ecology letters7, 601 (2004)

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    Hanski, Metapopulation dynamics, Nature396, 41 (1998)

    I. Hanski, Metapopulation dynamics, Nature396, 41 (1998)

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    R. M. May, Will a large complex system be stable?, Nature238, 413 (1972)

    work page 1972

  35. [35]

    Allesina and S

    S. Allesina and S. Tang, The stability–complexity relationship at age 40: a random matrix perspective, Population Ecology57, 63 (2015)

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Biroli, G

    G. Biroli, G. Bunin, and C. Cammarota, Marginally stable equilibria in critical ecosystems, New Journal 24 of Physics20, 083051 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Azaele, S

    S. Azaele, S. Suweis, J. Grilli, I. Volkov, J. R. Banavar, and A. Maritan, Statistical mechanics of ecological systems: Neutral theory and beyond, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 035003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Bunin, Ecological communities with lotka-volterra dynamics, Phys

    G. Bunin, Ecological communities with lotka-volterra dynamics, Phys. Rev. E95, 042414 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Galla, Dynamically evolved community size and stability of random lotka-volterra ecosystems(a), Eu- rophysics Letters123, 48004 (2018)

    T. Galla, Dynamically evolved community size and stability of random lotka-volterra ecosystems(a), Eu- rophysics Letters123, 48004 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Suweis, F

    S. Suweis, F. Ferraro, C. Grilletta, S. Azaele, and A. Maritan, Generalized lotka-volterra systems with time correlated stochastic interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 167101 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Akjouj, M

    I. Akjouj, M. Barbier, M. Clenet, W. Hachem, M. Ma¨ ıda, F. Massol, J. Najim, and V. C. Tran, Complex systems in ecology: a guided tour with large lotka–volterra models and random matri- ces, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences480, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2023.0284 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2023.0284 2023

  42. [42]

    Nicoletti, P

    G. Nicoletti, P. Padmanabha, S. Azaele, S. Suweis, A. Rinaldo, and A. Maritan, Emergent encoding of dispersal network topologies in spatial metapopulation models, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.120, e2311548120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    M. D. Holland and A. Hastings, Strong effect of dispersal network structure on ecological dynamics, Nature 456, 792 (2008)

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    Guichard and T

    F. Guichard and T. C. Gouhier, Non-equilibrium spatial dynamics of ecosystems, Mathematical Biosciences 255, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    Denk and O

    J. Denk and O. Hallatschek, Self-consistent dispersal puts tight constraints on the spatiotemporal organiza- tion of species-rich metacommunities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2200390119 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Nauta and M

    J. Nauta and M. De Domenico, Topological conditions drive stability in meta-ecosystems, Physical Review Research6, 043055 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Padmanabha, G

    P. Padmanabha, G. Nicoletti, D. Bernardi, S. Suweis, S. Azaele, A. Rinaldo, and A. Maritan, Landscape and environmental heterogeneity support coexistence in competitive metacommunities, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2410932121 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2410932121 2024

  48. [48]

    Doimo, G

    A. Doimo, G. Nicoletti, D. Bernardi, and P. Padmanabha, Finite-size scaling of survival statistics in metapopulation models, Phys. Rev. E111, 064415 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    C. W. Gardineret al.,Handbook of stochastic methods, Vol. 3 (springer Berlin, 1985)

    work page 1985

  50. [50]

    A. J. McKane and T. J. Newman, Stochastic models in population biology and their deterministic analogs, Phys. Rev. E70, 041902 (2004)

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    Lajmanovich and J

    A. Lajmanovich and J. A. Yorke, A deterministic model for gonorrhea in a nonhomogeneous population, Mathematical Biosciences28, 221 (1976)

    work page 1976

  52. [52]

    A. Fall, A. Iggidr, G. Sallet, and J. J. Tewa, Epidemiological models and lyapunov functions, Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena2, 62 (2007)

    work page 2007

  53. [53]

    Durrett and S

    R. Durrett and S. Levin, Spatial aspects of interspecific competition, Theoretical Population Biology53, 30 (1998)

    work page 1998

  54. [54]

    Calcagno, N

    V. Calcagno, N. Mouquet, P. Jarne, and P. David, Coexistence in a metacommunity: the competition– colonization trade-off is not dead, Ecology letters9, 897 (2006)

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    Mesz´ ena, M

    G. Mesz´ ena, M. Gyllenberg, L. P´ asztor, and J. A. Metz, Competitive exclusion and limiting similarity: A unified theory, Theoretical Population Biology69, 68 (2006)

    work page 2006

  56. [56]

    Violle, Z

    C. Violle, Z. Pu, and L. Jiang, Experimental demonstration of the importance of competition under disturbance, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 12925 (2010)

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Posfai, T

    A. Posfai, T. Taillefumier, and N. S. Wingreen, Metabolic trade-offs promote diversity in a model ecosys- tem, Physical review letters118, 028103 (2017)

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Tikhonov and R

    M. Tikhonov and R. Monasson, Collective phase in resource competition in a highly diverse ecosystem, Physical review letters118, 048103 (2017)

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    L. S. Comita, S. A. Queenborough, S. J. Murphy, J. L. Eck, K. Xu, M. Krishnadas, N. Beckman, and Y. Zhu, Testing predictions of the janzen–connell hypothesis: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence for distance- and density-dependent seed and seedling survival, Journal of Ecology102, 845 (2014)

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Sir´ en, P

    A. Sir´ en, P. Hamb¨ ack, and J. Machoa, Including spatial heterogeneity and animal dispersal when evaluating hunting: a model analysis and an empirical assessment in an amazonian community, Conserv Biol18, 1315 (2004)

    work page 2004

  61. [61]

    Ramette and J

    A. Ramette and J. M. Tiedje, Multiscale responses of microbial life to spatial distance and environmental heterogeneity in a patchy ecosystem, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences104, 2761 (2007)

    work page 2007

  62. [62]

    Zhang, D

    B. Zhang, D. L. DeAngelis, W.-M. Ni, Y. Wang, L. Zhai, A. Kula, S. Xu, and J. D. Van Dyken, Effect of stressors on the carrying capacity of spatially distributed metapopulations, The American Naturalist 196, E46 (2020), pMID: 32673100. 25

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Critical Slowing Down

    A. Gandhi, S. Levin, and S. Orszag, “Critical Slowing Down” in time-to-extinction: an example of critical phenomena in ecology, Journal of Theoretical Biology192, 363 (1998)

    work page 1998

  64. [64]

    Yaari, Y

    G. Yaari, Y. Ben-Zion, N. M. Shnerb, and D. A. Vasseur, Consistent scaling of persistence time in metapop- ulations, Ecology93, 1214 (2012)

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    Ovaskainen and B

    O. Ovaskainen and B. Meerson, Stochastic models of population extinction, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25, 643 (2010)

    work page 2010

  66. [66]

    Bernardi and B

    D. Bernardi and B. Lindner, Receiver operating characteristic curves for a simple stochastic process that carries a static signal, Phys. Rev. E101, 062132 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Padmanabha, S

    P. Padmanabha, S. Azaele, and A. Maritan, Generalisation of fluctuation-dissipation theorem to systems with absorbing states, New J. Phys.25, 113001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    D. A. Kessler and N. M. Shnerb, Extinction time distributions of populations and genotypes, Phys. Rev. E108, 044406 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Aguilar, M

    J. Aguilar, M. A. Mu˜ noz, and S. Azaele, The limits of inference in complex systems: When stochastic models become indistinguishable, arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.24977 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24977 2025

  70. [70]

    Tamme, I

    R. Tamme, I. Hiiesalu, L. Laanisto, R. Szava-Kovats, and M. P¨ artel, Environmental heterogeneity, species diversity and co-existence at different spatial scales, J Veg Sci21, 796 (2010)

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    Allouche, M

    O. Allouche, M. Kalyuzhny, G. Moreno-Rueda, M. Pizarro, and R. Kadmon, Area–heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 17495 (2012)

    work page 2012

  72. [72]

    Hortal, L

    J. Hortal, L. M. Carrascal, K. A. Triantis, E. Th´ ebault, S. Meiri, and S. Sfenthourakis, Species richness can decrease with altitude but not with habitat diversity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301663110 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1301663110 2013

  73. [73]

    Carnicer, L

    J. Carnicer, L. Brotons, S. Herrando, and D. Sol, Improved empirical tests of area-heterogeneity tradeoffs, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222681110 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1222681110 2013

  74. [74]

    Hamm and B

    M. Hamm and B. Drossel, Habitat heterogeneity hypothesis and edge effects in model metacommunities, Journal of Theoretical Biology426, 40 (2017)

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    M. M. Herberich, S. Gayler, and K. Tielb¨ orger, Environmental heterogeneity promotes coexistence among plant life-history strategies through stabilizing mechanisms in space and time, Basic and Applied Ecology 71, 45 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Z. R. Miller and S. Allesina, Habitat heterogeneity, environmental feedbacks, and species coexistence across timescales, The American Naturalist202, E53 (2023), pMID: 37531282

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    kill the winner

    C. Xue and N. Goldenfeld, Coevolution maintains diversity in the stochastic “kill the winner” model, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 268101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    J. Kang, S. Zhang, Y. Niu, F. Zhong, and X. Wang, Intraspecific predator interference promotes biodiver- sity in ecosystems, eLife13, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.93115.3 (2024)

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.93115.3 2024

  79. [79]

    M. T. Pearce, A. Agarwala, and D. S. Fisher, Stabilization of extensive fine-scale diversity by ecologically driven spatiotemporal chaos, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 14572 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Altieri and G

    A. Altieri and G. Biroli, Effects of intraspecific cooperative interactions in large ecosystems, SciPost Physics 12, 013 (2022)

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.