title: Competition-colonization trade-offs in a ciliate model community.
abstract: There is considerable theoretical evidence that a trade-off between competitive and colonization ability enables species coexistence. However, empirical studies testing for the presence of a competition-colonization (CC) trade-off and its importance for species coexistence have found mixed results. In a microcosm experiment, we looked for a CC trade-off in a community of six benthic ciliate species. For each species, we measured the time needed to actively disperse to and colonize an empty microcosm. By measuring dispersal rates and growth rates of the species, we were able to differentiate between these two important components of colonization ability. Competitive ability was investigated by comparing species' growth with or without a competitor in all pairwise species combinations. Species significantly differed in their colonization abilities, with good colonizers having either high growth rates or high dispersal rates or both. Although species showed a clear competitive hierarchy, competitive and colonization ability were uncorrelated. The weakest competitors were also the weakest colonizers, and the strongest competitor was an intermediate colonizer. However, some of the inferior competitors had higher colonization abilities than the strongest competitor, indicating that a CC trade-off may enable coexistence for a subset of the species. Absence of a community-wide CC trade-off may be based on the lack of strong relationships between the traits underlying competitive and colonization ability. We show that temporal effects and differential resource use are alternative mechanisms of coexistence for the species that were both slow colonizers and poor competitors.
authors: Department of Organismic Biology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria. romana.limberger@stud.sbg.ac.at
authors: Romana
authors: R
authors: Limberger
authors: Stephen A
authors: SA
authors: Wickham
references: Science. 2001 Jul 27;293(5530):650-5
references: 11474101
references: Am Nat. 2002 Mar;159(3):305-19
references: 18707382
references: J Anim Ecol. 2009 Jul;78(4):866-79
references: 19302319
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Jul 22;277(1691):2185-91
references: 20236983
references: Am Nat. 1998 Nov;152(5):729-37
references: 18811347
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Jun 7;274(1616):1403-11
references: 17389222
references: Am Nat. 2006 Nov;168(5):704-9
references: 17080367
references: Ecol Lett. 2008 Apr;11(4):348-56
references: 18201199
references: Ecol Lett. 2006 Aug;9(8):897-907
references: 16913929
references: Ecology. 2008 Jul;89(7):2033-42
references: 18705388
references: Am Nat. 1998 Jun;151(6):578-86
references: 18811379
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971 Jun;68(6):1246-8
references: 16591932
references: Monogr Popul Biol. 1982;17:1-296
references: 7162524
references: Am Nat. 2002 Oct;160(4):452-67
references: 18707522