Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Plant coexistence mediated by adaptive foraging preferences of exploiters or mutualists

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adaptive animal preferences determine whether two competing plants coexist, and the direction depends on whether the shared animal is an exploiter or a mutualist.

desk verdict A careful equilibrium classification of adaptive foraging in a two-plant, one-animal module; the local results are solid, but the global-stability claims outrun the proof. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02479 v1 pith:IIT2SGGF submitted 2019-08-07 q-bio.PE

Vlastimil Křivan , Tomás A. Revilla This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PE MSC 34A6037N2592D25
keywords behaviorally-mediatedinteractionscompetitionforpreferencedifferentialinclusiongeneralizedisoclineswitchingslidingandrepellingregimesplantcoexistenceadaptiveforaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Two plants that compete for space can coexist through a shared animal even when their direct competition is too strong, provided the animal is an exploiter, such as a herbivore, that switches its preference to the more profitable plant. With the animal's density fixed, the paper shows that these behavioral, trait-mediated effects alone are enough: adaptive exploiters can make a strongly competing pair coexist at a globally stable equilibrium where the exploiter is a generalist, and can even let each plant survive at animal densities that would kill either one alone. Adaptive mutualists, such as pollinators, have the opposite effect: at any locally stable coexistence equilibrium the mutualist specializes on one plant, and when the plants compete strongly, coexistence is impossible. The full classification is obtained through generalized isoclines, which combine the usual Lotka–Volterra isoclines in the two specialization sectors with the switching line where both plants are equally profitable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized isocline, a continuous piecewise-linear curve obtained by taking the classical Lotka–Volterra isoclines inside each preference sector and adding the segment of the switching line $e_1P_1=e_2P_2$ that connects them. Along the switching line the animal's payoff is equal for the two plants and optimal preference is not unique, so the population dynamics form a differential inclusion whose Filippov regularization produces sliding regimes under exploitation and repelling regimes under mutualism. The generalized isoclines are classified by two thresholds each: invasion thresholds $\gamma_i$, which decide whether the missing plant can invade the other's monoculture, and attraction thresholds $\tau_i$, which decide whether the equilibrium $E_S$ on the switching line attracts or repels nearby orbits. Comparing $K_1/K_2$ with $\gamma_1,\tau_1$ and $K_2/K_1$ with $\gamma_2,\tau_2$ yields the complete set of stable equilibria.

What would settle it

Take a system of two plants with measured competition coefficients satisfying $c_1c_2>1$, add a fixed-density herbivore that is observed to forage adaptively, and choose carrying capacities so that both invasion thresholds $\gamma_i$ are met; the paper predicts that the plants converge to a unique coexistence equilibrium $E_S$ at which the herbivore is a generalist, for all initial conditions. A controlled mesocosm, or a simulation with the same parameters, that shows persistent exclusion of one plant or stable coexistence while the herbivore remains a specialist at that parameter set would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the step-like optimal-preference rule, the plant phase plane splits into two sectors in which animals are specialists, separated by the switching line $e_1P_1=e_2P_2$ where both plants are equally profitable and animal preference is not unique. The central discovery is that existence and stability of an interior equilibrium on this switching line, $E_S$, depend on two pairs of thresholds: invasion thresholds $\gamma_i$ and new attraction thresholds $\tau_i$. For exploiters ($s=-1$) and strong plant competition ($c_1c_2>1$), $E_S$ is stable and, when both plants can invade each other's monoculture, globally stable, so adaptive generalist exploiters promote plant coexistence that the Lotka–Volterra model forbids. For mutualists ($s=1$), $E_S$ is always unstable, so any locally stable coexistence has the mutualist as a specialist; with $c_1c_2>1$ no coexistence equilibrium exists at all. These statements rest on a complete enumeration of generic isocline configurations, which reduces all possible outcomes to 56 feasible cases and 11 possible sets of stable equilibria.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rides on the animal being an ideal, costless, instantaneous optimizer: preferences follow the step rule $u_1=1$ when $e_1P_1>e_2P_2$, $u_1=0$ when $e_1P_1<e_2P_2$, and are arbitrary on the switching line $e_1P_1=e_2P_2$, with animal density fixed. If real animals learn slowly, perceive profitability imperfectly, or pay switching costs, the sharp switching line and the sliding and repelling regimes, and with them the specialist and generalist coexistence predictions, need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If adaptive exploiters have fixed density, coexistence of two strongly competing plants is possible without any density-mediated apparent competition; the effect is purely behavioral.
  • At exploiter densities above a threshold, the only stable coexistence state has the exploiter as a generalist, and increasing animal density then decreases both plant equilibrium densities together.
  • Under adaptive mutualism, a pollinator that maximizes fitness will not remain a generalist at a stable coexistence equilibrium, so stable coexistence of weakly competing plants occurs as alternative states with the mutualist favoring one plant or the other.
  • With strong plant competition, adaptive mutualists cannot rescue coexistence, in sharp contrast to adaptive exploiters; the sign of the interaction determines whether flexible preferences buffer or amplify competitive exclusion.
  • The generalized-isocline construction provides a complete classification of all generic outcomes, reducing them to 56 feasible configurations and 11 possible sets of stable equilibria.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if animal density were allowed to vary numerically, apparent competition should reappear for exploiters and resource depletion should push mutualists toward generalism, so the predictions here should not be imported into models with numeric responses.
  • Beyond the paper: because gradual Hill-function preferences converge to the step-like rule as steepness grows, the listed stable equilibria are the limits of soft-switching models; a testable next step is whether finite switching costs or perceptual error shrink the basin of $E_S$ under strong competition without destroying it.
  • Beyond the paper: the classification suggests an empirical asymmetry—at fixed or managed animal densities, herbivores should more often appear as generalists at stable mixed plant stands, while pollinators should appear as specialists even when both plants are present.
  • Beyond the paper: adding a second animal species creates two switching lines, three sectors, and five-segment generalized isoclines, so the complete classification will not scale; simulation studies of larger networks could test whether the exploiter-generalist and mutualist-specialist asymmetry persists in multispecies mixtures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies a two-plant, one-animal model in which plant dynamics follow Lotka-Volterra competition, animal density A is fixed, and animal preferences u_i follow the stepwise optimal foraging rule (5), yielding a planar differential inclusion. The authors introduce 'generalized isoclines' by connecting the sector-wise plant isoclines with segments on the switching line e1P1 = e2P2. They derive explicit coexistence equilibria EI, EII, and ES (Eqs. 13, 17, 19), invasion thresholds γ_i and attraction thresholds τ_i (Eqs. 14, 18), and present a classification of stable equilibria for exploitation (s = -1) and mutualism (s = 1) under weak and strong competition (Figures 5-8, Table A.2). The central claims are that adaptive exploiters can stabilize coexistence even when c1c2 > 1, whereas adaptive mutualists always specialize at stable coexistence and preclude coexistence when c1c2 > 1.

Significance. The manuscript is a theory contribution with no free parameters and no fitted constants. Its strengths are the explicit threshold formulas, the fully worked local stability analysis in Appendices A.1-A.2, the classification table, and the new generalized-isocline construction that makes the preference discontinuity analytically tractable. The predictions—exploiter generalism promotes coexistence under strong competition; mutualist specialization leads to alternative stable states under weak competition—are clear, ecologically relevant, and falsifiable in principle. The main caveat is that several headline statements concern global asymptotic behavior, while the proof infrastructure supports local stability plus sector-wise linear dynamics. The significance is therefore high if the global claims can be proven or appropriately qualified.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sections 3.1-3.2, Appendix A.2, Table A.2] The global-dynamics claims are not backed by a proof. Appendix A.1 establishes local stability of EI and EII from the Lotka-Volterra Jacobian, and Appendix A.2 establishes local attractivity of ES through the sliding-regime logistic equation (A.20), but these are local statements. The text nevertheless asserts global convergence, e.g., 'dynamics globally converge toward the monoculture equilibrium' in Section 3.1, 'ES is globally stable' in Section 3.2 (Figure 6i), and a 'complete classification of model outcomes' in Section 4. The system is a planar Filippov differential inclusion with switching line (6); in each sector the fields (A.1)-(A.2) are linear competition fields, but piecewise-linear Filippov systems can have closed orbits that extend across or slide along the switching line, and the absence of cycles in each linear subsystem does not exclude such orbits. No Dulac/Bendixson argument, Lyapunov function, or explicit cycle-exclusion proof for the full piecewise-smooth system is provided. Therefore the stated global stability and completeness results are, strictly, unproven; the proven content is a classification of locally stable equilibria. This does not affect the local coexistence conditions, but it is load-bearing for the abstract's and discussion's strongest claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'as a function of exploiter density' but the panel concerns adaptive mutualism (s = 1); it should read 'mutualist density'.
  2. [Section 2.1] Equation (5) defines U1 as a set-valued map, but later text uses u1 as if single-valued on the switching line; it would help to state explicitly that on the switching line the relevant u1 is the one selected by the sliding dynamics in Appendix A.2.
  3. [Table A.1] Entries such as 'ba', 'pq', and 'bq' denote intervals on the switching line but are not defined in the table; please use notation like 'b-a' or define the abbreviated interval names in the caption.
  4. [Appendix D] The claim that gradual preferences 'well approximate' the step-like case is illustrated with only one Hill exponent (z = 20) and one parameter set; a brief quantitative statement or additional parameter exploration would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained: equilibria and thresholds are computed from the stated model equations, not fitted or imported from self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The model is explicitly defined by the plant population equations (1) and the fitness-maximizing preference rule (5). All equilibria—EI, EII, and ES—are solved directly from these equations in Appendices A.1 and A.2, and the invasion thresholds γi and attraction thresholds τi are derived inequalities comparing isocline intersection points; they are not fitted parameters, renamed outputs, or imported conclusions. The generalized-isocline construction is introduced as a bookkeeping device that connects sector-wise classical isoclines with segments of the switching line, and the stability of ES is derived from the differential-inclusion sliding/repelling analysis in Appendix A.2. Self-citations (e.g., Křivan 2003b, Křivan and Vrkoč 2007, Revilla and Křivan 2016) are used to motivate the optimal-foraging rule and to compare related earlier models; they do not carry the load of the present classification, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the conclusions. No prediction in the paper reduces to a fitted constant, and no behavioral outcome is assumed by construction beyond the explicit optimal-foraging assumption in equation (5). The only substantive mathematical concern, namely that the claimed global stability of some equilibria in the piecewise-smooth Filippov system is asserted without an explicit proof excluding sliding or periodic orbits, is a proof-completeness or correctness issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the qualitative classification is derived analytically from the stated assumptions. The model parameters in figures are illustrative. The listed axioms are the main idealizations; all are explicitly stated in the paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Animal population density A is fixed; plants do not affect animal abundance.
    Stated in Section 2; this isolates behaviorally-mediated interactions and is central to the model's scope.
  • domain assumption Animal preferences instantaneously maximize current fitness W_A = e1u1P1 + e2u2P2 with perfect information, giving the step rule (5).
    Section 2.1; this creates the switching line and the differential inclusion.
  • domain assumption Plant-animal interactions are linear per-capita terms +/- ui A in the Lotka-Volterra equations (1).
    Equation (1); no saturating functional response or animal intra-specific competition is included.
  • domain assumption Mutualism is facultative when s=1; plants can persist without the animal.
    Section 2; the authors defend this for most plants with multiple pollinators or seed dispersers.
  • standard math Filippov regularization and differential inclusion theory for discontinuous right-hand sides.
    Used in Appendix A.2 to analyze sliding and repelling regimes; standard mathematical background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plant coexistence mediated by adaptive foraging preferences of exploiters or mutualists." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIT2SGGF

@misc{pith2026190802479,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plant coexistence mediated by adaptive foraging preferences of exploiters or mutualists},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIT2SGGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02479}
}
read the original abstract

Coexistence of plants depends on their competition for common resources and indirect interactions mediated by shared exploiters or mutualists. These interactions are driven either by changes in animal abundance (density-mediated interactions, e.g., apparent competition), or by changes in animal preferences for plants (behaviorally-mediated interactions). This article studies effects of behaviorally-mediated interactions on two plant population dynamics and animal preference dynamics when animal densities are fixed. Animals can be either adaptive exploiters or adaptive mutualists (e.g., herbivores or pollinators) that maximize their fitness. Analysis of the model shows that adaptive animal preferences for plants can lead to multiple outcomes of plant coexistence with different levels of specialization or generalism for the mediator animal species. In particular, exploiter generalism promotes plant coexistence even when inter-specific competition is too strong to make plant coexistence possible without exploiters, and mutualist specialization promotes plant coexistence at alternative stable states when plant inter-specific competition is weak. Introducing a new concept of generalized isoclines allows us to fully analyze the model with respect to the strength of competitive interactions between plants (weak or strong), and the type of interaction between plants and animals (exploitation or mutualism). Keywords: behaviorally-mediated interactions, competition for preference, differential inclusion, generalized isocline, switching, sliding and repelling regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02479 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interactions as a function of plant densities (axes) when animal preference changes according to the step-like rule (5). Below the switching line (6) animals specialize on plant 1, and above they specialize on plant 2. Generalism occurs along the switching line where animals display intermediate preferences for plants. 2.2. Interaction dynamics Generalized isoclines The effect of adaptive animals on plant coexistenc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Generalized isoclines (plant 1: black, plant 2: gray) and plant dynamics under weak competition (c1c2 < 1). The (dashed) switching line (6) splits the phase plane in sectors I and II. Stable equilibria are shown as dots, and unstable equilibria as circles. Panel a assumes low population of exploiters and isoclines intersect at a stable equilibrium in sector I. As the number of exploiters increases (panel b), plants … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b, c, the overlap segment (b—q in panel b and a—p in panel c) does not consist of equilibria only, as we explain in the next section. We remark that under exploitation (s = −1) plant 1 (plant 2) generalized isocline consists of three segments if r1 > A (r2 > A). Otherwise, the isocline has only two segments because E1 and b (E2 and p) are not in the first quadrant. In case of mutualism (s = 1) generalized isoclines … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Plant coexistence under weak competition (c1c2 < 1) and adaptive exploitation (s = −1), for high (left column) or low (right column) K1/K2 ratios. Top panels show stable plant coexistence (thick lines) and monoculture (E1 and E2, thin lines) equilibria as a function of…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plant coexistence under weak competition (c1c2 < 1) and adaptive mutualism (s = 1), for high (left column) or low (right column) K1/K2 ratios. Top panels show stable coexistence (EI and EII, thick lines) and monoculture (E1 and E2, thin lines) equilibria as a function …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plant generalized isoclines (plant 1: black, plant 2: gray) under exploitation (s = −1) and weak competition (c1c2 < 1). Isoclines intersect the dashed switching line (6) at four points a, b, p, q. Animals specialize on plant 1 (2) in sector I (II) that is below (above…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plant generalized isoclines under exploitation (s = −1) and strong competition (c1c2 > 1). Notation like in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plant generalized isoclines under mutualism (s = 1) and weak competition (c1c2 < 1). Notation like in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plant generalized isoclines under mutualism (s = 1) and strong competition (c1c2 > 1). Notation like in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abrams, P. A. and H. Matsuda (1996). P ositive indirect effects between prey species that share predators. E cology\/ 77 , 610--616

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Adler, P. B., D. Smull, K. H. Beard, R. T. Choi, T. Furniss, A. Kulmatiski, J. M. Meiners, A. T. Tredennick, and K. E. Veblen (2018). C ompetition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. E cology L etters\/ 21 , 1319--1329

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Aubin, J. P. and A. Cellina (1984). D ifferential I nclusions: S et-valued M aps and V iability T heory . Springer-Verlag

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    Bastolla, U., M. A. Fortuna, A. Pascual-Garca, A. Ferrera, B. Luque, and J. Bascompte (2009). T he architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. N ature\/ 458 , 1018--1020

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Eisner, and V

    Berec, L., J. Eisner, and V. Krivan (2010). A daptive foraging does not always lead to more complex food webs. J ournal of T heoretical B iology\/ 266 , 211--218

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Holyoak, V

    Bolker, B., M. Holyoak, V. K r ivan, L. Rowe, and O. Schmitz (2003). C onnecting theoretical and empirical studies of trait-mediated interactions. E cology\/ 84 , 1101--1114

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Bronstein, J. L. (2015). M utualism . Oxford University Press

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Case, T. (2000). A n I llustrated G uide to T heoretical E cology . Oxford University Press

    work page 2000

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Colombo, R. and V. K r ivan (1993). S elective strategies in food webs. IMA J ournal of M athematics A pplied in M edicine and B iology\/ 10 , 281--291

    1993

  2. [10]

    Dieckmann, and M

    Egas, M., U. Dieckmann, and M. W. Sabelis (2004). E volution restricts the coexistence of specialists and generalists: the role of trade-off structure. A merican N aturalist\/ 163 , 518--531

    2004

  3. [11]

    Feinsinger, P. (1987). E ffects of plant species on each other's pollination: is community structure influenced? T rends in E cology and E volution\/ 2 , 123--126

    1987

  4. [12]

    Filippov, A. F. (1988). D ifferential equations with discontinuous righthand sides . Academic Publishers

    1988

  5. [13]

    Dajoz, J

    Fontaine, C., I. Dajoz, J. Meriguet, and M. Loreau (2005). F unctional diversity of plant--pollinator interaction webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PL o S B iology\/ 4\/ (1), e1

    2005

  6. [14]

    Th \'e bault, and I

    Fontaine, C., E. Th \'e bault, and I. Dajoz (2009). A re insect pollinators more generalist than insect herbivores? P roceedings of the R oyal S ociety B : B iological S ciences\/ 276 , 3027--3033

    2009

  7. [15]

    Gause, G. F. (1934). T he S truggle for E xistence . Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins

    1934

  8. [16]

    Georgelin, E. and N. Loeuille (2014). D ynamics of coupled mutualistic and antagonistic interactions, and their implications for ecosystem management. J ournal of T heoretical B iology\/ 346 , 67--74

    2014

  9. [17]

    Gauzens, M

    Geslin, B., B. Gauzens, M. Baude, I. Dajoz, C. Fontaine, M. Henry, L. Ropars, O. Rollin, E. Th \'e bault, and N. Vereecken (2017). M assively I ntroduced M anaged S pecies and T heir C onsequences for P lant-- P ollinator I nteractions. A dvances in E cological R esearch\/ 57 ...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Ghazoul, J. (2006). F loral diversity and the facilitation of pollination. J ournal of E cology\/ 94 , 295--304

    2006

  11. [19]

    Grover, J. P. (1997). R esource C ompetition . Chapman & Hall

    1997

  12. [20]

    Gurevitch, J., L. L. Morrow, A. Wallace, and J. S. Walsh (1992). A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. A merican N aturalist\/ 140 , 539--572

    1992

  13. [21]

    Hardin, G. (1960). T he competitive exclusion principle. S cience\/ 131 , 1292--1297

    1960

  14. [22]

    Hernandez, M. J. (1998). D ynamics of transitions between population interactions: a nonlinear interaction -function defined. P roceedings of the R oyal S ociety B : B iological S ciences\/ 265 , 1433--1440

    1998

  15. [23]

    Holland, J. N. and D. L. DeAngelis (2010). A consumer-resource approach to the density-dependent population dynamics of mutualism. E cology\/ 91 , 1286--1295

    2010

  16. [24]

    Holt, R. D. (1977). P redation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. T heoretical P opulation B iology\/ 12 , 197--229

    1977

  17. [25]

    Holt, R. D., J. Grover, and D. Tilman (1994). S imple rules for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative and apparent competition. A merican N aturalist\/ 144 , 741--771

    1994

  18. [26]

    Del Moral (1997)

    Inderjit and R. Del Moral (1997). I s separating resource competition from allelopathy realistic? T he B otanical R eview\/ 63 , 221--230

    1997

  19. [27]

    Kisdi, \'E . (2002). D ispersal: risk spreading versus local adaptation. A merican N aturalist\/ 159 , 579--596

    2002

  20. [28]

    Kondoh, M. (2003). F oraging adaptation and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability. S cience\/ 299 , 1388--1391

    2003

  21. [29]

    K r ivan, V. (1996). O ptimal foraging and predator prey dynamics. T heoretical P opulation B iology\/ 49 , 265--290

    1996

  22. [30]

    K r ivan, V. (1997). D ynamic ideal free distribution: effects of optimal patch choice on predator-prey dynamics. A merican N aturalist\/ 149 , 164--178

    1997

  23. [31]

    K r ivan, V. (2003a). C ompetitive co-existence caused by adaptive predators. E volutionary E cology R esearch\/ 5 , 1163--1182

    2003

  24. [32]

    K r ivan, V. (2003b). I deal free distributions when resources undergo population dynamics. T heoretical P opulation B iology\/ 64 , 25--38

    2003

  25. [33]

    K r ivan, V. (2007). T he L otka-- V olterra predator-prey model with foraging--predation risk trade-offs. A merican N aturalist\/ 170 , 771--782

    2007

  26. [34]

    K r ivan, V. (2010). E volutionary stability of optimal foraging: partial preferences in the diet and patch models. J ournal of T heoretical B iology\/ 267 , 486--494

    2010

  27. [35]

    Cressman, and C

    K r ivan, V., R. Cressman, and C. Schneider (2008). T he ideal free distribution: a review and synthesis of the game-theoretic perspective. T heoretical P opulation B iology\/ 73 , 403--425

    2008

  28. [36]

    K r ivan, V. and O. J. Schmitz (2004). T rait and density mediated indirect interactions in simple food webs. O ikos\/ 107 , 239--250

    2004

  29. [37]

    K r ivan, V. and E. Sirot (2002). H abitat selection by two competing species in a two-habitat environment. A merican N aturalist\/ 160 , 214--234

    2002

  30. [38]

    K r ivan, V. and I. Vrko c (2007). A L yapunov function for piecewise-independent differential equations: stability of the ideal free distribution in two patch environments. J ournal of M athematical B iology\/ 54 , 465--488

    2007

  31. [39]

    MacArthur, R. H. and R. Levins (1967). T he limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. A merican N aturalist\/ 101 , 377--385

    1967

  32. [40]

    Melin, C. J., J. Bascompte, P. Jordano, and V. K r ivan (2009). D iversity in a complex ecological network with two interaction types. O ikos\/ 118 , 122--130

    2009

  33. [41]

    Morris, D. W. (2003). T oward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. O ecologia\/ 136 , 1--13

    2003

  34. [42]

    Mougi, A. and M. Kondoh (2014). A daptation in a hybrid world with multiple interaction types: a new mechanism for species coexistence. E cological R esearch\/ 29 , 113--119

    2014

  35. [43]

    Pimm, S. L. and M. L. Rosenzweig (1981). C ompetitors and habitat use. O ikos\/ 37 , 1--6

    1981

  36. [44]

    Revilla, T. A. and F. Encinas-Viso (2015). D ynamical transitions in a pollination--herbivory interaction: a conflict between mutualism and antagonism. PL o S ONE \/ 10 , e0117964

    2015

  37. [45]

    Revilla, T. A. and V. K r ivan (2016). P ollinator foraging adaptation and the coexistence of competing plants. PL o S ONE \/ 11 , e0160076

    2016

  38. [46]

    Revilla, T. A. and V. K r ivan (2018). C ompetition, trait-mediated facilitation, and the structure of plant-pollinator communities. J ournal of T heoretical B iology\/ 440 , 42--57

    2018

  39. [47]

    Rohr, R. P., S. Saavedra, and J. Bascompte (2014). O n the structural stability of mutualistic systems. S cience\/ 345 , 1253497

    2014

  40. [48]

    Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981). A theory of habitat selection. E cology\/ 62 , 327--335

    1981

  41. [49]

    Rueffler, C., T. J. Van Dooren, and J. A. Metz (2006). T he interplay between behavior and morphology in the evolutionary dynamics of resource specialization. A merican N aturalist\/ 169 , E34--E52

    2006

  42. [50]

    Sauve, A. M. C., C. Fontaine, and E. Th \'e bault (2016). S tability of a diamond-shaped module with multiple interaction types. T heoretical E cology\/ 9 , 27--37

    2016

  43. [51]

    Sheppard, C. S. (2019). R elative performance of co-occurring alien plant invaders depends on traits related to competitive ability more than niche differences. B iological I nvasions\/ 21 , 1101--1114

    2019

  44. [52]

    Tilman, D. (1982). R esource C ompetition and C ommunity S tructure . Princeton: Princeton University Press

    1982

  45. [53]

    Valdovinos, F. S., P. Moisset de Espan \'e s, J. D. Flores, and R. Ramos-Jiliberto (2013). A daptive foraging allows the maintenance of biodiversity of pollination networks. O ikos\/ 122\/ (6), 907--917

    2013

  46. [54]

    Vandermeer, J. and D. H. Boucher (1978). V arieties of mutualistic interaction in population models. J ournal of T heoretical B iology\/ 74 , 549--558

    1978

  47. [55]

    Waser, N. M. and L. A. Real (1979). E ffective mutualism between sequentially flowering plant species. N ature\/ 281 , 670--672

    1979

  48. [56]

    Yan, C. and Z. Zhang (2014). S pecific non-monotonous interactions increase persistence of ecological networks. P roceedings of the R oyal S ociety B : B iological S ciences\/ 281 , 20132797

    2014

  49. [57]

    Zhang, Z., C. Yan, C. J. Krebs, and N. C. Stenseth (2015). E cological non-monotonicity and its effects on complexity and stability of populations, communities and ecosystems. E cological M odelling\/ 312 , 374--384

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.