Ergebnis für URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3 IFRAME: [1]https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MRVXSHQ
IFRAME: [2]https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MRVXSHQ
[3]Skip to main content
[4]SpringerLink
[5]Log in
[6]Menu
[7]Find a journal [8]Publish with us [9]Track your research
[10]Search
[11]Cart
1. [12]Home
[13]Theoretical Ecology
Article
Plant-soil feedbacks and the coexistence of competing plants
* Original Paper
* [14]Open access
* Published: 09 June 2012
* Volume 6, pages 99-113, (2013)
* [15]Cite this article
[16]Download PDF
You have full access to this [17]open access article
[18]Theoretical Ecology [19]Aims and scope [20]Submit manuscript
Plant-soil feedbacks and the coexistence of competing plants
[21]Download PDF
* [22]Tomás A. Revilla^[23]1,[24]2,[25]7,
* [26]G. F. (Ciska) Veen^[27]3,[28]4,[29]5,
* [30]Maarten B. Eppinga^[31]6 &
* ...
* [32]Franz J. Weissing^[33]1
(BUTTON) Show authors
* 4100 Accesses
* 48 Citations
* 1 Altmetric
* [34]Explore all metrics
Abstract
Plant-soil feedbacks can have important implications for the interactions among
plants. Understanding these effects is a major challenge since it is inherently
difficult to measure and manipulate highly diverse soil communities. Mathematical
models may advance this understanding by making the interplay of the various
processes affecting plant-soil interaction explicit and by quantifying the
relative importance of the factors involved. The aim of this paper is to provide
a complete analysis of a pioneering plant-soil feedback model developed by Bever
and colleagues (J Ecol 85: 561-573, [35]1997; Ecol Lett 2: 52-62, [36]1999; New
Phytol 157: 465-473, [37]2003) to fully understand the range of possible impacts
of plant-soil feedbacks on plant communities within this framework. We analyze
this model by means of a new graphical method that provides a complete
classification of the potential effects of soil communities on plant competition.
Due to the graphical character of the method, the results are relatively easy to
obtain and understand. We show that plant diversity depends crucially on two key
parameters that may be viewed as measures of the intensity of plant competition
and the direction and strength of plant-soil feedback, respectively. Our analysis
provides a formal underpinning of earlier claims that plant-soil feedbacks,
especially when they are negative, may enhance the diversity of plant
communities. In particular, negative plant-soil feedbacks can enhance the range
of plant coexistence by inducing competitive oscillations. However, these
oscillations can also destabilize plant coexistence, leading to low population
densities and extinctions. In addition, positive feedbacks can allow locally
stable forms of plant coexistence by inducing alternative stable states. Our
findings highlight that the inclusion of plant-soil interactions may
fundamentally alter the predictions on the structure and functioning of
above-ground ecosystems. The scenarios presented in this study can be used to
formulate hypotheses about the ways soil community effects may influence plant
competition that can be tested with empirical studies. This will advance our
understanding of the role of plant-soil feedback in ecological communities.
Similar content being viewed by others
[38]Bottom-up perspective - The role of roots and rhizosphere in climate change
adaptation and mitigation in agroecosystems
Article Open access 04 April 2024
[39]Biochar and organic fertilizer applications enhance soil functional microbial
abundance and agroecosystem multifunctionality
Article Open access 08 January 2024
[40]Soil pH - nutrient relationships: the diagram
Article 04 January 2023
[41]Use our pre-submission checklist
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Ecologists have long recognized that interactions between plants are mediated by
many biotic (e.g., grazing, plant competition, and facilitation) and abiotic
factors (e.g., soil texture, nutrient availability, and topography; Harper
[42]1977; Tilman [43]1988). More recent research has stressed the influence of
the soil community on competitive interactions between plants (Callaway et al.
[44]2004; Klironomos [45]2002) by exerting positive or negative effects on the
growth of specific plants (De Deyn et al. [46]2003; Gange et al. [47]1993;
Klironomos [48]2003; Olff et al. [49]2000; van der Heijden et al. [50]1998a; van
der Heijden et al. [51]2003; van der Putten and van der Stoel [52]1998; van der
Putten et al. [53]1993). Therefore, plant-soil interactions can potentially be of
crucial importance for species composition of plant communities and, more
generally, the diversity of terrestrial ecosystems (van der Putten et al.
[54]2001; Wardle et al. [55]2004).
The interaction between a plant and the soil community, referred to as plant-soil
feedback, is a two-step process: the presence of a specific plant changes the
composition of the soil community, which in turn alters the growth rate of that
specific plant (Bever [56]2003; Reynolds et al. [57]2003). Quantifying the effect
of soil organisms on plant growth and vice versa is difficult due to the vast
below-ground diversity, and the technical problems inherent to measuring and
manipulating soil communities (Bever [58]2003; van der Putten et al. [59]2009).
Therefore, there is a need for mathematical models that can help to generate
insight into the potential implications of plant-soil feedbacks on species
dynamics and diversity (van der Putten et al. [60]2009).
Bever and colleagues ([61]1997, [62]1999, [63]2003) developed such a modeling
framework. In a 2003 paper, Bever incorporated plant-soil interactions in the
classical Lotka-Volterra competition model, an approach that motivated several
subsequent modeling studies on similar topics (Bonanomi et al. [64]2005; Eppinga
et al. [65]2006; Eppstein et al. [66]2006; Eppstein and Molofsky [67]2007;
Umbanhowar and McCann [68]2005). Bever ([69]2003) highlighted two implications of
plant-soil feedback for the coexistence of two competing plant species: (1)
negative plant-soil feedback facilitates plant coexistence and (2) negative
plant-soil feedback drives oscillations in plant abundances. These kinds of
predictions are appealing to empirical plant-soil ecologists because they can be
tested with relatively straightforward experiments (Bever [70]1994; Bever et al.
[71]1997), without requiring specific knowledge on the composition of soil
communities or the effects of individual soil-borne species on plant growth.
Bever only performed a partial analysis of his model, thus leaving out a number
of interesting predictions. A more complete analysis of the "Bever model" (i.e.,
the model developed in Bever [72]2003) is required to fully understand the impact
of plant-soil feedbacks on plant communities in this framework. The first goal of
our paper is to develop intuitively appealing methods allowing such an analysis,
thereby pointing out various routes by which soil communities can affect plant
diversity. A second goal is to refine some of Bever's ([73]2003) conclusions,
such as the usefulness of the "feedback parameter I [S]" (which was introduced on
the basis of an earlier model) in the context of plant competition, and the
characterization of the parameter range for which plant-soil feedback drives
oscillations in plant abundances. Our third goal is to highlight that
oscillations induced by negative feedbacks do not per se enhance plant diversity.
In fact, we will show that such feedbacks can actually be detrimental for plant
coexistence on a local scale.
We start this paper by introducing the Bever model in "[74]The Bever model"
section. In the "[75]Graphical analysis" section, we analyze and predict the
outcomes of the model by means of a graphical method integrating plant-soil
interactions and plant competition. In the "[76]Implications for plant
coexistence" section, we derive the implications of our results for plant species
coexistence, emphasizing some new results and scenarios not considered by Bever
([77]2003). Finally, we discuss the implications of our results in the
"[78]Discussion" section.
The Bever model
The "Bever model" (Bever [79]2003) studies the effect of two soil communities
with densities S [A] and S [B] on the growth of two competing plant species with
densities N [A] and N [B] (Fig. [80]1). The dynamics of the system are described
by the following system of four differential equations:
Fig. 1
[81]figure 1
Schematic representation of the interactions between two plants A and B and their
associated soil communities S [A] and S [B]
[82]Full size image
$$ \frac{{d{N_A}}}{{dt}} = {r_A}{N_A}\left( {1 + {\alpha_A}{S_A} + {\beta_A}{S_B}
- \frac{{{N_A} + {c_B}{N_B}}}{{{K_A}}}} \right) $$
(1a)
$$ \frac{{d{N_B}}}{{dt}} = {r_B}{N_B}\left( {1 + {\alpha_B}{S_A} + {\beta_B}{S_B}
- \frac{{{N_B} + {c_A}{N_A}}}{{{K_B}}}} \right) $$
(1b)
$$ \frac{{d{S_A}}}{{dt}} = {S_A}{S_B}\frac{{{N_A} - v{N_B}}}{{{N_A} + {N_B}}} $$
(1c)
$$ \frac{{d{S_B}}}{{dt}} = {S_A}{S_B}\frac{{v{N_B} - {N_A}}}{{{N_A} + {N_B}}} $$
(1d)
The competition coefficients c [A] and c [B] are expressed as the per capita
effects of each species on the growth rate of the competitor species
(interspecific competition), relative to the per capita effect on the growth rate
of its own population (intraspecific competition). r [A] and r [B] denote the
intrinsic per capita growth rates of the plant species. K [A] and K [B] are the
carrying capacities of the plant species when growing in isolation. S [A] and S
[B] are the densities of the two soil communities, where S [A] is specifically
associated with plant species A and S [B] with plant species B. The soil
community is positively affected by the relative abundance of its associated
plant species and negatively affected by the relative abundance of the other
plant species. The parameter n is a scaling factor that quantifies the relative
strength of the positive and negative effects of plants on soil community growth.
The effect of the soil communities on plant growth is characterized by the
parameters a [A], a [B], b [A], and b [B], respectively, which can be either
positive, negative, or zero. The appearance of the product S [A] S [B] in
([83]1c) and ([84]1d) reflects the fact that Bever originally derived his model
for the relative abundances of the two soil communities (Bever et al. [85]1997).
In fact, adding ([86]1c) and ([87]1d) yields \( \frac{{d{S_{\text A}}}}{{dt}} +
\frac{{d{S_{\text B}}}}{{dt}} = 0 \) and, as a consequence, S [A] + S [B] =
const. Scaling the total abundance of the soil communities to one, we can express
S [B] in terms of S [A] (i.e., S [B] = 1 - S [A]) and reduce system (1) to a
system of three differential equations. This system can be written in the form:
$$ \frac{{d{N_A}}}{{dt}} = {\rho_A}{N_A}\left( {1 - \frac{{{N_A} +
{c_B}{N_B}}}{{{\kappa_A}}}} \right) $$
(2a)
$$ \frac{{d{N_B}}}{{dt}} = {\rho_B}{N_B}\left( {1 - \frac{{{N_B} +
{c_A}{N_A}}}{{{\kappa_B}}}} \right) $$
(2b)
$$ \frac{{d{S_A}}}{{dt}} = {S_A}\left( {1 - {S_A}} \right)\left( {\frac{{{N_A} -
v{N_B}}}{{{N_A} + {N_B}}}} \right) $$
(2c)
The intrinsic growth rates r [A ]and r [B ]and the carrying capacities k [A ]and
k [B ]of the two plant species depend on the densities of the soil communities, S
[A] and S [B] = 1 - S [A], and they are given by:
$$ {\rho_A} = {\rho_A}\left( {{S_A}} \right) = {r_A} \cdot \left( {1 +
{\alpha_A}{S_A} + {\beta_A}\left( {1 - {S_A}} \right)} \right) $$
(3a)
$$ {\rho_B} = {\rho_B}\left( {{S_A}} \right) = {r_B} \cdot \left( {1 +
{\alpha_B}{S_A} + {\beta_B}\left( {1 - {S_A}} \right)} \right) $$
(3b)
$$ {\kappa_A} = {\kappa_A}\left( {{S_A}} \right) = {\kappa_A} \cdot \left( {1 +
{\alpha_A}{S_A} + {\beta_A}\left( {1 - {S_A}} \right)} \right) $$
(3c)
$$ {\kappa_B} = {\kappa_B}\left( {{S_A}} \right) = {\kappa_B} \cdot \left( {1 +
{\alpha_B}{S_A} + {\beta_B}\left( {1 - {S_A}} \right)} \right) $$
(3d)
For the rest of this paper, we assume that \(
{\alpha_A},{\beta_A},{\alpha_B},{\beta_B} > - 1 \), thus preventing k [A] and k
[B] from turning into negative equilibrium densities. All other model parameters
are assumed to be positive.
Graphical analysis
We analyze the Bever model in four steps. The first three steps do not show new
results, but introduce concepts and a line of reasoning that is crucial for
understanding our graphical methods in the final step. First, we discuss the
effects of the soil dynamics on plants growing in monoculture, which will lead us
to the concept of soil stability. Second, we consider the effects of a fixed soil
composition on plant competition, which helps us to define the concept of
competitive stability. Third, we take into account the net effects of the
plant-soil feedbacks, and how to distinguish whether they are positive or
negative. Fourth, we integrate our criteria for soil stability, competitive
stability, and feedbacks in a graphical method for the analysis of the complete
system (2).
Plant monocultures
A monoculture of plant A is represented by Eqs. (2a, c) with N [B] = 0. This
monoculture has two equilibrium states: a first one in which S [A] = 1 and \(
{N_A} = {\kappa_A}(1) = {K_A}\left( {1 + {\alpha_A}} \right) \), and a second one
in which S [A] = 0 and \( {N_A} = {\kappa_A}(0) = {K_A}\left( {1 + {\beta_A}}
\right) \). When 0 < S [A] < 1, Eq. ([88]2c) implies that S [A] converges to 1
while S [B] converges to 0, i.e., the soil community associated with plant A
completely eliminates the soil community associated with plant B. In dynamical
terms, the first equilibrium is stable with regards to perturbations in the soil
community, and it will be classified as soil-stable. Accordingly, the second
equilibrium is unstable with regards to perturbations in the soil community, and
it will be classified as soil-unstable. Obviously, the same arguments apply to
monocultures of plant species B. For later reference, we give the four
monoculture equilibria a name: A [A ]: soil-stable monoculture of plant A, A [B
]: soil-unstable monoculture of plant A, B [B ]: soil-stable monoculture of plant
B, and B [A ]: soil-unstable monoculture of plant B.
Effect of a static soil community on plant competition
When a soil community remains static, i.e., at constant density, the coefficients
r [A], r [B], k [A], and k [B] are constant and plant competition is described by
a standard Lotka-Volterra model. The dynamics of this model is well-known (e.g.,
Case [89]2000): the outcome of competition depends on the ability of each species
to invade the monoculture of the other species when this species is at its
carrying capacity (k [A] or k [B], respectively). From Eq. ([90]2a), it follows
that species A can invade the monoculture of species B if c [B] k [B] < k [A],
implying c [B] < k [A]/k [B]. Similarly, species B can invade in the monoculture
of species A if c [A] < k [B]/k [A]. This leads to four possible outcomes of
competition (Case [91]2000). If species A (resp. species B) is the only species
able to invade the monoculture of the other species, species A (resp. species B)
will win the competition. If both species are able to invade the monoculture of
the other species, both species will stably coexist. If neither species is able
to invade the monoculture of the other species, one of the species will win the
competition, the winner depending on initial conditions.
A community equilibrium exists if either both species or none of the species can
invade the monoculture of the other species, i.e., if c [A] - k [B]/k [A] and c
[B] - k [A]/k [B] have the same sign. The community equilibrium is stable if the
two species can mutually invade each other. Multiplying both sides of the
invasion criteria c [A] < k [B]/k [A] and c [B] < k [A]/k [B] yields the
stability condition c [A] c [B] < 1, which is often interpreted as "interspecific
competition is on average weaker than intraspecific competition". Summarizing:
$$ existence\,of\,community\,equilibrium:\left( {{c_A} - {\kappa_B}/{\kappa_A}}
\right)\left( {{c_B} - {\kappa_A}/{\kappa_B}} \right) > 0 $$
(4a)
$$ stability\,of\,community\,equilibrium:{c_A}{c_B} < 1 $$
(4b)
Figure [92]2 illustrates the conditions for equilibrium and stability in a plot
where the co-ordinate axes correspond to the ratios of (soil dependent) carrying
capacities: x = k [B]/k [A] and y = k [A]/k [B] (this approach is similar in
spirit as the "recovery plane" analysis of Eppinga et al. ([93]2006) where k
[B]/k [A] - c [A] and k [A]/k [B] - c [B] are plotted against each other). The
relation between x and c [A] determines whether B can invade the monoculture of
A, while the relation between y and c [B] determines whether A can invade the
monoculture of B. The parameters x and y are not independent but constrained by
\( xy = \left( {{{{{\kappa_B}}} \left/ {{{\kappa_A}}} \right.}} \right)\left(
{{{{{\kappa_A}}} \left/ {{{\kappa_B}}} \right.}} \right) = 1 \). In other words,
all parameter combinations describing a competitive plant system actually lie on
the hyperbola xy = 1. If c [A] c [B] < 1 (Fig. [94]2a), this hyperbola intersects
the coexistence region III, which means that stable coexistence is possible for
certain values of k [B]/k [A]. In the case of c [A] c [B] > 1 (Fig. [95]2b), the
hyperbola intersects the mutual exclusion region IV and stable coexistence is not
possible at all.
Fig. 2
[96]figure 2
Outcomes of the Lotka-Volterra system. The axes correspond to the ratios of the
carrying capacities: \( x = {\kappa_B}/{\kappa_A},y = {\kappa_A}/{\kappa_B} \).
Since y = 1/x, all feasible systems are constrained to the hyperbola xy = 1.
Plant B invades the monoculture of plant B if x > c [A ]and plant A invades the
monoculture of B if y > c [B ]. As a result the plane can be divided into four
invasibility zones I, II, III, and IV. a When c [A] c [B] < 1, the hyperbola xy =
1 intersects region III, but not region IV. Hence, the community equilibrium is
stable (if it exists). b When c [A] c [B] > 1, the hyperbola xy = 1 intersects
region IV but not region III. Now the community equilibrium is unstable (if it
exists), and depending on the initial conditions, the system will either converge
to a monoculture of plant A or to a monoculture of plant B
[97]Full size image
For future reference, we will use the term competitive stability to refer to
systems allowing a stable plant community equilibrium (c [A] c [B] < 1) and the
term competitive instability for systems where only monoculture equilibria can be
stable (c [A] c [B] > 1). As we shall see later on, the soil community effects
(indirectly) affect the balance between intra- and interspecific plant
competition among the plant species. Therefore, such soil community effects have
the ability to shift the plant system from one competitive regime to another.
Positive and negative plant-soil feedback
Given a pair of values of k [A] and k [B] determined by S [A] (Eqs. [98]3c, d)
the corresponding competitive system can be represented as a point on the
hyperbola xy = 1 in Fig. [99]2. Since S [A] can vary from 0 to 1, all feasible
competitive systems can be mapped as a continuous set of points, i.e., a
feasibility arc. The two endpoints of the feasibility arc have the coordinates:
$$ {S_A} = 1:x = {x_A} = \frac{{{\kappa_B}(1)}}{{{\kappa_A}(1)}} =
\frac{{{\kappa_B}\left( {1 + {\alpha_A}} \right)}}{{{\kappa_A}\left( {1 +
{\alpha_B}} \right)}},y = {y_A} = \frac{1}{{{x_A}}} = \frac{{{\kappa_A}\left( {1
+ {\alpha_A}} \right)}}{{{\kappa_B}\left( {1 + {\alpha_B}} \right)}} $$
(5a)
$$ {S_A} = 0:x = {x_B} = \frac{{{\kappa_B}(0)}}{{{\kappa_A}(0)}} =
\frac{{{\kappa_B}\left( {1 + {\beta_B}} \right)}}{{{\kappa_A}\left( {1 +
{\beta_A}} \right)}},y = {y_B} = \frac{1}{{{x_B}}} = \frac{{{\kappa_A}\left( {1 +
{\beta_A}} \right)}}{{{\kappa_B}\left( {1 + {\beta_B}} \right)}} $$
(5b)
Figure [100]3 pictures the feasibility arc as an arrow with its head at S [A ]= 1
(Eq. [101]5a) and its tail at S [A ]= 0 (Eq. [102]5b). With respect to the y-axis
the arc can have an upward or a downward orientation. If the orientation is
upwards (Fig. [103]3a), large values of S [A] correspond to systems close to (or
in) parameter regime I of Fig. [104]2a, where plant species A is competitively
dominant. Small values of S [A] correspond to systems close to (or in) regime II
where plant B is dominant. In this situation there is a positive plant-soil
feedback in the sense that the dominance of one type of soil community (S [A] or
S [B]) favors the competitive dominance of the associated plant species (A or B).
Similarly, there is negative plant-soil feedback if the arc points downwards
(Fig. [105]3b) because the dominance of one type of soil community favors the
competitive dominance of the plant species not associated with the dominant soil
community.
Fig. 3
[106]figure 3
Effect of positive versus negative plant-soil feedback. The range of possible
soil communities (S [A] ranging from 0 to 1) determines a feasibility arc,
corresponding to a segment on the hyperbola xy = 1. The direction of increasing S
[A] is indicated by an arrow head. a If the arrow points upwards (J [S ]> 0),
increasing S [A] shifts the system towards region I where plant species A wins
the competition (see Fig. [107]2). Hence, the soil community of A has a positive
effect on the competitive position of A (positive soil-plant feedback). b If the
arrow points downwards (J [S] < 0), increasing S [A] shifts the system towards
region II where species B wins. Hence, the soil community of A has a negative
effect on A (negative soil-plant feedback)
[108]Full size image
The feedback is positive if \( y({S_A}) = {{{{\kappa_A}({S_A})}} \left/
{{{\kappa_B}({S_A})}} \right.} \) is increasing with S [A] (as in Fig. [109]3a)
or, in other words, if dy/dS [A] > 0. This derivative is given by \( dy/d{S_A} =
\left( {{K_A}{K_B}/\kappa_B^2} \right) \cdot {J_S} \), where
$$ {{J}_{{\text{S}}}} = \left( {1 + {{\alpha }_{{\text{A}}}}} \right)\left( {1 +
{{\beta }_{{\text{B}}}}} \right) - \left( {1 + {{\alpha }_{{\text{B}}}}}
\right)\left( {1 + {{\beta }_{{\text{A}}}}} \right) $$
(6)
Since \( {K_A}{K_B}/K_B^2 \) is always positive, the plant-soil feedback is
positive if J [s] > 0 and it is negative if J [s] < 0. In the absence of
plant-soil feedback (J [s] = 0), the feasibility arc collapses into a single
point (see the "[110]Effect of a static soil community on plant competition"
section).
The importance of the sign of the plant-soil feedback was pointed out by Bever
and colleagues (Bever et al. [111]1997; Bever [112]1999) who argued that positive
feedback tends to favor competitive dominance and, hence, species-poor plant
communities, while negative feedback tends to favor plant coexistence. To
quantify plant-soil feedbacks, Bever introduced an interaction coefficient I [S]
that is defined by
$$ {I_S} = {\alpha_A} + {\beta_B} - {\alpha_B} - {\beta_A} $$
(7)
There is a simple relationship between the coefficient I [S] introduced by Bever,
and the coefficient J [S] resulting from our analysis
$$ {J_S} = {I_S} + {\alpha_A}{\beta_B} - {\alpha_B}{\beta_A} $$
(8)
Hence, in the case of parameter symmetry (i.e., \( {\alpha_A}{\beta_B} =
{\alpha_B}{\beta_A} \)) Bever's interaction coefficient I [S] correctly predicts
plant-soil feedback also in the case of plant-plant competition. J [S]
generalizes I [S] to systems without parameter symmetry. In asymmetric scenarios,
the difference between J [S] and I [S] is often small. But it is easy to
construct examples where J [S] and I [S] differ in sign, that is, where Bever's
coefficient I [S] does not correctly indicate the sign of the feedback.
In analogy to Lotka-Volterra competition coefficients we also define a net
plant-soil feedback effect, which can be derived from the ratio between effects
on the host plant (analogous to intraspecific competition) and cross-effects on
the other plant (analogous to interspecific competition):
$$ {H_S} = {x_B}{y_A} = \frac{{\left( {1 + {\alpha_A}} \right)\left( {1 +
{\beta_B}} \right)}}{{\left( {1 + {\alpha_B}} \right)\left( {1 + {\beta_A}}
\right)}} $$
(9)
In view of ([113]6), H [S] > 1 implies that host-plant effects of a soil
community are more favorable than cross-effects, meaning that plant-soil feedback
is positive (J [S] > 0). H [S] < 1 implies that cross-effects are more favorable
than host plant effects, meaning that plant-soil feedback is negative. We also
want to remark that the natural logarithm of H [S], which has the literal signs
(+ or -), as well as comparable scales for positive and negative feedbacks, can
be approximated by Bever's I [S] for small values of alphas en betas (i.e., first
order Taylor series).
Combining plant and soil dynamics
Combining the plots in Figs. [114]2 and [115]3 provides us with a graphical
method that is often sufficient for a complete characterization of the dynamics
of the coupled plant-soil community described by Eq. ([116]2). There are 20
different ways in which the feasibility arc can intersect the four parameter
domains corresponding to the plant competition scenarios I to IV (Fig. [117]4),
which are characterized by the monoculture invasion criteria. A detailed overview
of the scenarios is given in [118]Appendix A.
Fig. 4
[119]figure 4
Intersection of the feasibility arc of Fig. [120]3 with the invasion zones of
Fig. [121]2. The arc is represented as an arrow which indicates the direction of
increasing S [A]. There are 20 scenarios, differing in the relative position and
orientation of the feasibility arc with respect to the invasion zones
[122]Full size image
Figure [123]5a depicts case 12, where the feasibility arc lies completely within
region II where only species B can invade. We can therefore conclude that
irrespective of the state of the soil only plant species B can grow in this
scenario. Thus the system converges to the monoculture equilibrium B [B ]in which
S [A] = 0. In fact, in all cases where the feasibility arc lies within regions I
or II (cases 1, 2, 11, and 12) one of the plants will always win, irrespective of
the initial conditions. When the arc lies in region III (cases 3 and 13), each
plant species can invade the monoculture of the other species, implying that the
two species will stably coexist at equilibrium. When the arc lies within region
IV (cases 4 and 14) neither plant species can invade when rare. Both plant
monocultures are stable, and the winner depends on the initial conditions
(founder control; Bolker et al. [124]2003). Summarizing, we can conclude that in
the eight scenarios where the feasibility arc lays completely inside one of the
four competition regions the qualitative outcome of plant competition does not
depend on the sign of the plant-soil feedback.
Fig. 5
[125]figure 5
Graphical analysis of two scenarios discussed in the text. a Case 12 in
Fig. [126]1: the whole feasibility arc is lying in region II. In this case,
species B will win the competition, and the soil composition will converge to S
[A] = 0 (i.e., the "tail" of the arrow). b Case 15 in Fig. [127]1: the tail of
the arc is in region I, whereas the head is in region II. As long as the system
is in region I, S [A] will increase. Eventually region III will be reached,
corresponding to the stable coexistence of the two plant species
[128]Full size image
Figure [129]5b depicts case 15, which is more complex because the feasibility arc
spans two invasion zones. However, the analysis is still straightforward. A
monoculture of plant B can never be stable, since the whole arc lies in the
parameter region where A can invade such a monoculture. In parameter regime I, a
monoculture of plant A is to be expected in the absence of plant-soil feedback.
However, as long as plant A is in monoculture, the associated soil community S
[A]will increase. Hence the system will be shifted along the feasibility arc in
the direction of the arrow, until the plant coexistence regime III is reached. We
conclude that in this case the (negative) plant-soil feedback enables coexistence
of the two plant species.
As indicated by Fig. [130]5, the position of the end point of the feasibility arc
with respect to the invasion zones tells us whether a plant monoculture can be
invaded or not, and hence how the plant-soil interactions may determine the plant
dynamics. For a monoculture of plant A, the "head" of the feasibility arc (S [A]
= 1), which corresponds to the equilibrium state A [A ], is relevant. This state
can be invaded by plant B if and only if c [A] < x [A]. By symmetry, a
monoculture of plant B corresponds to the state B [B ], which is located at the
"tail" of the feasibility arc (S [A] = 0) and can be invaded by plant A, if and
only if c [B] < x [B]. Multiplying these two inequalities and noticing that \(
{{x}_{{\text{A}}}}{{y}_{{\text{B}}}} = {{\left(
{{{x}_{{\text{B}}}}{{y}_{{\text{A}}}}} \right)}^{{ - 1}}} = H_{{\text{S}}}^{{ -
1}} \), we obtain a necessary condition for mutual invasion of the two
monoculture equilibria:
$$ {{c}_{{\text{A}}}}{{c}_{{\text{B}}}} < H_{{\text{S}}}^{{ - 1}} $$
(10)
In the absence of plant-soil feedback (J [S] = 0 or H [S] = 1) condition (10)
turns into condition (4b) for the stable coexistence of the two plant species in
the Lotka-Volterra competition model. In line with the predictions of Bever and
colleagues (Bever [131]1999; Bever et al. [132]1997), condition (10) leads to the
conclusion that the conditions for plant coexistence are more stringent in the
case of a positive feedback (where \( H_{\text{S}}^{{ - 1}} < 1 \)), while they
are more relaxed in the case of a negative plant-soil feedback.
Indeed we found that positive feedback generally enhances plant monocultures
(cases 7-10), while net negative feedback enhances plant coexistence (cases 15,
16, 19, and 20). However, we found a few exceptions where plants can coexist
under positive feedback (cases 5 and 6), and where negative feedback drove the
system towards plant monocultures (cases 17 and 18). Therefore, in contrast to
standard Lotka-Volterra theory, monoculture invasion conditions as those
considered above do no longer provide a complete picture of the outcome of plant
competition. In the "[133]Implications for plant coexistence" section, we will
demonstrate in more detail that the two plant species can stably coexist even in
cases where condition (10) for the mutual invasibility of the two plant
monocultures is not satisfied.
Implications for plant coexistence
Can plant-soil feedback drive community oscillations?
One of the most important conclusions from Bever ([134]2003), resulting from a
numerical example, is that negative plant-soil feedback can enhance coexistence
by inducing competitive oscillations. However, a mathematical analysis of the
same example (Revilla [135]2009) reveals that these oscillations rapidly dampen
out and that the system converges to a stable coexistence equilibrium. (Only,
when numerically integrating the model with a large integration step size we
obtained the oscillations described in Bever's Fig. [136]1c.). Therefore, we
first explore if and under what conditions oscillation can arise in the Bever
model.
Population cycles are frequently associated with predator-prey dynamics, but they
are also a common feature in Lotka-Volterra competition models (Gilpin [137]1975;
May and Leonard [138]1975) and in resource competition models (Huisman and
Weissing [139]2001; Revilla and Weissing [140]2008). In these models,
oscillations require at least three competitors such that species R outcompetes
species S, S outcompetes P, and P outcompetes R, as in the Rock-Scissors-Paper
game. Mathematically, the monocultures of R, P, and S are connected by
heteroclinic orbits, i.e., a sequence of paths R -> P -> S -> R that forms a
cycle. Although the Bever model involves only two plant competitors, it has in
fact four monoculture states (A [A ], A [B ], B [B ], B [A ]). This allows us to
construct a heteroclinic cycle as follows.
Consider the configuration corresponding to case 20 in Fig. [141]6a. From the
positioning of the end points of the feasibility arc in competition regimes I and
II, we can conclude that the following inequalities are satisfied:
Fig. 6
[142]figure 6
Graphical analysis (a) and dynamical analysis (b) of case 20 in Fig. [143]1. a As
long as the system is in region I, S [A] will increase, driving the monoculture
of A from an uninvasible state into an invasible state. Similarly, as long as the
system is in region III, S [A] will decrease, driving the monoculture of B toward
an invasible state. In both directions, the system passes through the zone of
unstable community equilibria (IV). b The parameter space is mapped into a phase
space where circles represent equilibria (white, unstable; gray, saddle) at the
corresponding invasion zones (see [144]Appendix A for details on mapping into the
phase space). The diagonal line represents the A-B nullcline (species A grows
towards the right B grows towards the left), and the dashed line is the soil
nullcine (S [A] increases in the right and decreases in the left); their
intersection corresponds to the internal equilibrium predicted in (a).
Monocultures are either competitively stable or soil stable, but not both: they
are saddle points forming a heteroclinic cycle around the internal equilibrium AB
which is competitively unstable. The system converges to a heteroclinic orbit
(the border of the phase space)
[145]Full size image
$$ {x_B} < {c_A} < {x_A}{ }{\text{and}}{ }{y_A} < {c_B} < {y_B} $$
(11)
As discussed above, the inequalities c [A] < x [A] and c [B] < y [B] imply that
both plant monocultures can be invaded by their plant competitor when their
associated soil communities (i.e., soil community A is associated to plant
monoculture A, and soil community B to plant monoculture B) are dominant. In
other words, A [A ]and B [B ]are competitively unstable. The inequalities x [B] <
c [A] and y [A] < c [B] imply that the two monocultures cannot be invaded when
the invader's soil biota is dominant. In other words, A [B ]and B [A ]are
competitively stable. However, as shown in the "[146]Plant monocultures" section,
these two equilibria are not soil stable. In such a situation, we expect a cyclic
sequence A [A ]-> B [A ]-> B [B ]-> A [B ]-> A [A ]of successions or at least
oscillations following this sequence (Fig. [147]6b).
This is confirmed by Fig. [148]7 which depicts the time course of the system
under the above scenario. For Bever's parameterization (Fig. [149]7a;
corresponding to Bever [150]2003, Fig. [151]1c), the system exhibits damped
oscillations that converge to a coexistence equilibrium. By increasing the
intensity of competition, c [A ]c [B ], this equilibrium becomes unstable and
gives rise to a limit cycle (Fig. [152]7b). With a further increase in
competition intensity the cycle becomes a heteroclinic orbit, i.e., the system
"visits" the four monoculture equilibria in a cyclic fashion, remaining in the
vicinity of each monoculture state for increasingly longer times (Fig. [153]7c).
Fig. 7
[154]figure 7
Competitive oscillations due to a cyclic succession of competitive instability
and soil instability. The top panels show the densities of plant A (solid line)
and B (dashed line); the bottom panels depict the density of the soil biota S
[A]. The parameter values K [A] = 100, K [B] = 120, r [A] = 0.7, r [B] = 0.5, n =
0.8, a [A] = -0.03, a [B] = b [A] = 0.10, b [B] = -0.20, and c [B] = 0.980 are
kept fixed, while the competition coefficient c [A] is increased from c [A] =
0.885 in (a) via c [A] = 1.005 in (b), to c [A] = 1.050 in (c). Scenario (a)
corresponds to Bever's ([155]2003) Fig. 4c with increasing intensity of
competition, the asymptotic behavior of the system changes from convergence to a
stable coexistence equilibrium in (a), via convergence to a limit cycle in (b) to
convergence to a heteroclinic orbit in (c). In this example, soil-plant feedback
is negative (J [s] = -0.434). Because of x [A] ~= 1.36, y [A] ~= 0.73, x [B] ~=
0.87, y [B] ~= 1.15, the conditions (13) for the cyclical succession A [A ]-> B
[A ]-> B [B ]-> A [B ]-> A [A ]are satisfied
[156]Full size image
In Fig. [157]7a, b, c [A] c [B] < 1 and the parameter configuration corresponds
to case 19 in Fig. [158]1. Now the feasibility arc intersects parameter region
III for stable competitive coexistence. In the absence of soil community effects,
there exists a stable coexistence equilibrium, but this equilibrium can be
destabilized when soil community effects are incorporated. This is indeed the
case if the competition intensity c [A] c [B] is just below 1 (as in
Fig. [159]7b). In fact, it can be shown analytically (Revilla [160]2009) that
stable equilibrium coexistence (as in Fig. [161]7a) is only possible if c [A] c
[B] < 1 - d, where d is a positive quantity that can be calculated from the
remaining system parameters. In Fig. [162]7c, c [A] c [B] > 1, as a consequence,
the parameter configuration corresponds to case 20 in Fig. [163]1, where the
feasibility arc intersects parameter region IV for mutual competitive exclusion
(see also Fig. [164]6a). In this region, there exists a coexistence equilibrium,
but this equilibrium is unstable. As a consequence, the sequence of events
described unfolds, and the system converges to the heteroclinic cycle A [A ]-> B
[A ]-> B [B ]-> A [B ]-> A [A ](see Fig. [165]6b).
Notice that the conditions (11) imply that \( {H_S} =
{x_{\text{B}}}{y_{\text{A}}} < {x_{\text{A}}}{y_{\text{B}}} = H_{\text{S}}^{{ -
1}} \), which is only possible for H [S] < 1 or, equivalently, J [S] < 0. As a
consequence, the above scenario for the development of oscillations can only
occur in case of negative plant-soil feedback. Since the analytical results of
Revilla ([166]2009) suggest that this is the only route to oscillations in the
Bever model, we conclude that competitive oscillations will only occur if two
requirements are met: (a) the plant-soil feedback is negative and (b) both
soil-stable monoculture equilibria are susceptible to invasion.
Does negative plant-soil feedback enhance coexistence?
Coexistence between plant species is favored when each plant species can invade
the monoculture of the other species. This is possible in many scenarios
(Fig. [167]1 scenarios 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20). When we exclude
the scenarios where feedback does not determine invasion (1, 2, 3, 11, 12, and
13) we can see that only negative plant-soil feedback allows mutual invasion.
Although this generally enhances plant coexistence, it does not necessarily lead
to equilibrium coexistence. Instead, as shown in the previous paragraph
oscillations can occur. If these oscillations take the form of a limit cycle, the
two plant species will still stably persist, although not in equilibrium. But the
oscillations can also take the form of a heteroclinic cycle, where the
populations are repeatedly driven to very low densities. In the mathematical
model, they still survive, but in the real world local extinction can occur.
Thus, in case of a heteroclinic cycle mutual invasibility of the two monocultures
may not result in long-term coexistence.
To assess the relative importance of limit cycles versus heteroclinic cycles, we
investigated the pattern in Fig. [168]7 numerically. Using
continuation-bifurcation analysis software (program: XPPAUT, Ermentrout 2002), we
found that as c [A] c [B] increases, regular oscillations start at c [A] c [B] =
0.977 (where a Hopf bifurcation occurs). Already at c [A] c [B] = 0.998, these
oscillations turn into a heteroclinic orbit. Switching between the four
monoculture states persists until c [A] c [B] = 1.559 (at this point, the
requirement for mutual invasion (12) is no longer satisfied, and the chain of
heteroclinic orbits connecting the four monocultures is broken). Thus, while the
system does not converge to equilibrium for 0.977 < c [A] c [B] < 1.559, a limit
cycle only occurs for the much smaller range 0.977 < c [A] c [B] < 0.998. In
other words, more than 95 % of the parameter range corresponding to
non-equilibrium dynamics corresponds to the occurrence of heteroclinic cycles,
and hence, to eventual extinction.
Accordingly, negative feedback has a much smaller potential for the facilitation
of plant coexistence than Bever's analysis seems to suggest. One should notice,
however, that in a spatial context, the risk of extinction via the
large-amplitude oscillations associated with a heteroclinic cycle may be
counteracted by the repeated re-immigration of the locally extinct species. Under
such conditions, also a heteroclinic cycle can allow the regional coexistence of
the plant species.
Coexistence as an alternative stable state
The previous example highlights that plant-soil feedbacks can generate
competitive dynamics that are not observed in standard competition models. In
this section, we will also show an example of how soil community effects can
fundamentally alter the stability of equilibria. This has important implications
for the utility of invasion criteria to analyze stability. When properly used,
invasion criteria are very useful to predict the range of dynamics that a
dynamical system can possibly display. In the present context, we can list all
possible dynamics of Bever's model (Table [169]1) by just considering whether A
[A ]and B [B ]can be invaded or not (i.e., whether c [A] < x [A], c [B] < y [B]
hold or not), and the direction of the feedback (the sign of J [S ]). However, as
illustrated by the following example an invasion analysis can also have its
limitations.
Table 1 Plant community composition for different scenarios of plant invasion and
net plant-soil feedback
[170]Full size table
Consider the scenario in Fig. [171]8a (case 5) where the feedback is positive (J
[S] > 0) and where c [A] > x [A] and c [B] < y [B]. In this case, condition (10)
for mutual invasibility does not hold: while plant A is able to invade the
monoculture of plant B (since c [B] < y [B]), plant B cannot invade the
monoculture of plant A (since c [A] < x [A] does not hold). However, stable
coexistence may still be possible. As indicated in Fig. [172]8a, the "tail" of
the feasibility arc (S [A] = 0) lies in zone III, which means that for S [A] = 0
there is a competitively stable community equilibrium. Following our previous
notation, this equilibrium will be denoted by AB [B ]since the soil is dominated
by B's soil biota, as seen in Fig. [173]8b. Provided that N [A] < vN [B], this
community equilibrium is a stable attractor: according to Eq. ([174]1c), this
condition ensures dS [A]/dt < 0; and hence, the soil stability of AB [B ](in
addition to the competitive stability of this equilibrium). Interestingly, AB [B
]is not the only attractor: the "head" of the feasibility arc (S [A] = 1) lies in
zone I, where plant coexistence is not possible and plant A attains a
competitively stable and soil stable monoculture A [A ].
Fig. 8
[175]figure 8
(a) Graphical analysis and (b) phase space analysis of case 5 in Fig. [176]1. (a)
In this configuration a monoculture of species A is not invasible by B (and hence
stable), while a monoculture of species B is invasible by A. As explained in the
text, the community equilibrium corresponding to the tail of the feasibility arc
can also be a stable equilibrium. Hence, the system allows two alternative stable
states. (b) The phase space shows the equilibria (white, unstable; black, stable;
gray, saddle) and the invasion zones. The diagonal line representing the A-B
nullcline (both species grow towards it) intersects S [A] = 0 giving rise to the
coexistence equilibrium AB [B ]predicted in part (a). If the vertical dashed line
representing the soil-nullcline (S [A] increases to the right and decreases to
the left) intersects the A-B nullcline there will be an internal equilibrium AB
that is a saddle point; and depending on the initial conditions the system moves
towards the monoculture of A [A ]dominated by A's soil biota or towards the
coexistence equilibrium AB [B ]dominated by B's soil biota
[177]Full size image
This example illustrates three points. First, a locally stable community
equilibrium is not necessarily globally stable. In addition to the community
equilibrium (here AB [B ]), there can be other stable attractors (here A [A ]),
and the competitive outcome depends on the initial conditions. Second, invasion
analysis is a very powerful technique, but it has its limitations. In the above
example, AB [B ]can be stable even in the absence of mutual invasibility (the
monoculture equilibrium A [A ]cannot be invaded by plant species B). Third, since
our graphical analysis reflects an invasion analysis, it also has its
limitations. In the above example, the stability of AB [B ]depends on the
magnitude of the parameter n, while n does not play a significant role in the
graphical analysis.
Our conclusion that mutual invasibility is not required for stable plant
coexistence is not only of theoretical interest, but also of empirical relevance.
In fact, many experimental studies on plant-soil feedback use a set-up that is
quite comparable to a mathematical invasion analysis (i.e., introduction of a
plant species in a community dominated by other species). The above example
demonstrates that--in contrast to classical competition theory--predictions on
plant coexistence that are solely based on the outcome of invasion experiments
have to be treated with care.
Discussion
In this paper, we aimed at a better understanding of plant species dynamics and
coexistence in the presence of plant-soil feedback. To this end, we developed
mathematical and graphical techniques allowing a rather complete analysis of
Bever's ([178]2003) model. We found that plant species coexistence is possible if
the intensity of interspecies competition (c [A] c [B]) is smaller than \(
H_{\text{S}}^{{ - 1}} \), a parameter closely related to the net plant-soil
feedback parameter J [S]. When plant-soil feedback is positive, plant coexistence
is more difficult to achieve than in the pure competition model. In contrast, a
negative plant-soil feedback allows plant coexistence under more relaxed
conditions and thus has the potential to enhance plant community diversity (Bever
et al. [179]1997; van der Heijden et al. [180]2008). Recent empirical studies, as
well as a meta-analysis of more than 300 plant-soil feedback experiments, indeed
show that negative feedback favors coexistence and diversity (Bever [181]1994;
Bradley et al. [182]2008; De Deyn et al. [183]2003; Kulmatiski et al. [184]2008;
Mills and Bever [185]1998).
Most of the results from our graphical analysis have an intuitive explanation
because plant-soil feedback contributes to the competitive strength of the plant
species. For example, in the case of negative plant-soil feedback (J [S] > 0),
the competitive position of a plant is weakened when its associated soil
community increases (i.e., the system shifts towards the region where the other
plant species wins, Figs. [186]2 and [187]3). However, plant-soil interactions do
not affect the competition intensities c [A] and c [B], and hence, also not the
stability of an internal equilibrium if it exists (Fig. [188]2).
While our analysis supports Bever's conclusion that negative feedback favors
coexistence, we also demonstrated that the standard criterion for plant
coexistence (the mutual invasibility of monocultures) is not a necessary
condition for coexistence. As a consequence, plant coexistence under positive
feedback is more likely than Bever's ([189]2003) analysis suggests. Surely, in
natural situations positive plant-soil feedback, for example, mediated by the
presence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is often associated with an increase in
the dominance of a particular plant species and a reduction in diversity
(Hartnett and Wilson [190]1999). Moreover, exotic plant species that escaped from
species-specific soil pathogens may still profit from mutualistic root symbionts
in their new range which favors their dominance (Callaway et al. [191]2004;
Klironomos [192]2002). However, it has also been shown that positive plant-soil
feedbacks can enhance plant coexistence. For example, the presence of arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi may enhance plant diversity in grasslands (Grime et al.
[193]1987; van der Heijden et al. [194]1998b) by promoting seedling establishment
and enhancing the competitive ability of subordinate plant species (Grime et al.
[195]1987; van der Heijden et al. [196]2008).
Our results provide a mechanistic understanding of how negative plant-soil
feedback can drive oscillations in plant species abundances. Oscillations could
occur in situations where plants would otherwise competitively exclude each
other, meaning that oscillations can enable coexistence. We also found, however,
that oscillations along a heteroclinic orbit could occur in situations where
plants would otherwise stably coexist, meaning that oscillations can also enable
stochastic extinction. Therefore, negative plant-soil feedback does not
necessarily enhance coexistence in all situations. Although many studies
indicated that negative plant-soil feedback can be important driving plant
dynamics (Olff et al. [197]2000) and ecological succession (De Deyn et al.
[198]2003; van der Putten et al. [199]1993), there are no studies directly
testing its impact on competitive oscillations. Yet, some of these empirical
studies show that soil-borne organisms have the potential to decline the
competitive strength of plants to such an extent that can be replaced by others
(van der Putten and van der Stoel [200]1998; van der Putten et al. [201]1993).
We introduced two alternative interaction coefficients J [S] and H [S]. These
coefficients are more generally applicable to the current model, than Bever's I
[S]. In the original plant-soil feedback model of Bever et al. ([202]1997), plant
abundances as well as soil communities are accounted in terms of proportions (not
densities) and plant competition is "apparent" (sensu Holt [203]1977), being a
by-product of the feedbacks. As a consequence, the original Bever et al. model
([204]1997) has only two outcomes that can be predicted in terms of plant-soil
feedback effects, i.e., the sign of I [S]. In contrast, the version of the Bever
([205]2003) model that we studied here is a modification of the Lotka-Volterra
model. This model has more degrees of freedom because plant densities can vary
independently, and because this model contains additional parameters related to
resource competition. Consequently, equilibrium stability and global dynamics
cannot be fully accounted for by solely considering combinations of feedback
effects (I [S], J [S], H [S]), but must consider resource competition (parameters
c [A] and c [B]) as well. In this study, we have shown how Bever's coefficient I
[S] can be generalized to capture situations involving plant competition as well
(J [S] or H [S]).
A major strength of the plant-soil feedback modeling approach introduced by Bever
and colleagues is its close connection to experimental plant-soil feedback pot
experiments (Bever [206]1994; Bever [207]1999; Bever et al. [208]1997). However,
the assumption of exponential plant growth, made in the original version of the
model, is problematic, even in shorter-term pot experiments. This may be one
reason why the original model does not predict the outcome of such experiments
very well (Kulmatiski et al. [209]2011). By linking plant-soil feedback to the
classical Lotka-Volterra competition model, Bever ([210]2003) included plant
competition in his model. By providing the mathematical and graphical tools for
analyzing this more complicated model, we hope to facilitate the extension of the
plant-soil feedback approach to longer-term experiments and field situations.
References
* Bever JD (1994) Feedback between plants and their soil communities in an old
field community. Ecology 75:1965-1977. doi:[211]10.2307/1941601
[212]Article [213]Google Scholar
* Bever JD (1999) Dynamics within mutualism and the maintenance of diversity:
inference from a model of interguild frequency dependence. Ecol Lett 2:52-62.
doi:[214]10.1046/j.1461-0248.1999.21050.x
[215]Article [216]Google Scholar
* Bever JD (2003) Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors:
conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytol 157:465-473.
doi:[217]10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00714.x
[218]Article [219]Google Scholar
* Bever JD, Westover KM, Antonovics J (1997) Incorporating the soil community
into plant population dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. J Ecol
85:561-573. doi:[220]10.2307/2960528
[221]Article [222]Google Scholar
* Bolker BM, Pacala SW, Neuhauser C (2003) Spatial dynamics in model plant
communities: What do we really know? Am Nat 162:135-148.
doi:[223]10.1086/376575
[224]Article [225]PubMed [226]Google Scholar
* Bonanomi G, Giannino F, Mazzoleni S (2005) Negative plant-soil feedback and
species coexistence. Oikos 111:311-321.
doi:[227]10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13975.x
[228]Article [229]Google Scholar
* Bradley DJ, Gilbert GS, Martiny JBH (2008) Pathogens promote plant diversity
through a compensatory response. Ecol Lett 11:461-469.
doi:[230]10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01162.x
[231]Article [232]PubMed [233]Google Scholar
* Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Rodriguez A, Holben WE (2004) Soil biota and exotic
plant invasion. Nature 427:731-733. doi:[234]10.1038/nature02322
[235]Article [236]PubMed [237]CAS [238]Google Scholar
* Case T (2000) An illustrated guide to theoretical ecology. University Press,
Oxford
[239]Google Scholar
* De Deyn GB, Raaijmakers CE, Zoomer HR, Berg MP, de Ruiter PC, Verhoef HA,
Bezemer TM, van der Putten WH (2003) Soil invertebrate fauna enhances
grassland succession and diversity. Nature 422:711-713.
doi:[240]10.1038/nature01548
[241]Article [242]PubMed [243]Google Scholar
* Eppinga MB, Rietkerk M, Dekker SC, De Ruiter PC, van der Putten WH (2006)
Accumulation of local pathogens: a new hypothesis to explain exotic plant
invasions. Oikos 114:168-176. doi:[244]10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14625.x
[245]Article [246]Google Scholar
* Eppstein MJ, Molofsky J (2007) Invasiveness in plant communities with
feedbacks. Ecol Lett 10:253-263. doi:[247]10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01017.x
[248]Article [249]PubMed [250]Google Scholar
* Eppstein MJ, Bever JD, Molofsky J (2006) Spatio-temporal community dynamics
induced by frequency dependent interactions. Ecol Model 197:133-147
[251]Article [252]Google Scholar
* Gange AC, Brown VK, Sinclair GS (1993) Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal
fungi--a determinant of plant community structure in early succession. Funct
Ecol 7:616-622. doi:[253]10.2307/2390139
[254]Article [255]Google Scholar
* Gilpin ME (1975) Limit cycles in competition communities. Am Nat 109:51-60
[256]Article [257]Google Scholar
* Grime JP, Mackey JML, Hillier SH, Read DJ (1987) Floristic diversity in a
model system using experimental microcosms. Nature 328:420-422.
doi:[258]10.1038/328420a0
[259]Article [260]Google Scholar
* Harper JL (1977) Plant population biology. Academic Press, New York
[261]Google Scholar
* Hartnett DC, Wilson GWT (1999) Mycorrhizae influence plant community
structure and diversity in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 80:1187-1195.
doi:[262]10.1890/0012-9658(1999) 080[1187:MIPCSA]2.0.CO;2
[263]Article [264]Google Scholar
* Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey
communities. Theor Popul Biol 12
* Huisman J, Weissing FJ (2001) Biological conditions for oscillations and
chaos generated by multispecies competition. Ecology 82:2682-2695.
doi:[265]10.1890/0012-9658(2001) 082[2682:BCFOAC]2.0.CO;2
[266]Article [267]Google Scholar
* Klironomos JN (2002) Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and
invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67-70. doi:[268]10.1038/417067a
[269]Article [270]PubMed [271]CAS [272]Google Scholar
* Klironomos JN (2003) Variation in plant response to native and exotic
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology 84:2292-2301. doi:[273]10.1890/02-0413
[274]Article [275]Google Scholar
* Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Stevens JR, Cobbold SM (2008) Plant-soil feedbacks: a
meta-analytical review. Ecol Lett 11:980-992.
doi:[276]10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x
[277]Article [278]PubMed [279]Google Scholar
* Kulmatiski A, Heavilin J, Beard KH (2011) Testing predictions of a
three-species plant-soil feedback model. J Ecol 99:542-550.
doi:[280]10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01784.x
[281]Google Scholar
* May RM, Leonard WJ (1975) Nonlinear aspects of competition between 3 species.
SIAM J Appl Math 29:243-253
[282]Article [283]Google Scholar
* Mills KE, Bever JD (1998) Maintenance of diversity within plant communities:
soil pathogens as agents of negative feedback. Ecology 79:1595-1601.
doi:[284]10.1007/s004420050823
[285]Article [286]Google Scholar
* Olff H, Hoorens B, de Goede RGM, van der Putten WH, Gleichman JM (2000)
Small-scale shifting mosaics of two dominant grassland species: the possible
role of soil-borne pathogens. Oecologia 125:45-54.
doi:[287]10.1007/PL00008890
[288]Article [289]Google Scholar
* Revilla T (2009) Multispecies resource competition. PhD dissertation.
University of Groningen, The Netherlands
* Revilla T, Weissing FJ (2008) Nonequilibrium coexistence in a competition
model with nutrient storage. Ecology 89:865-877.
doi:[290]org/10.1890/07-1103.1
[291]Article [292]PubMed [293]Google Scholar
* Reynolds HL, Packer A, Bever JD, Clay K (2003) Grassroots ecology:
plant-microbe-soil interactions as drivers of plant community structure and
dynamics. Ecology 84:2281-2291. doi:[294]10.1890/02-0298
[295]Article [296]Google Scholar
* Tilman D (1988) Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant
communities. Princeton University Press, NJ
* Umbanhowar J, McCann K (2005) Simple rules for the coexistence and
competitive dominance of plants mediated by mycorrhizal fungi. Ecol Lett
8:247-252. doi:[297]10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00714.x
[298]Article [299]Google Scholar
* van der Heijden MGA, Boller T, Wiemken A, Sanders IR (1998a) Different
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal species are potential determinants of plant
community structure. Ecology 79:2082-2091. doi:[300]10.1890/0012-9658(1998)
079[2082:DAMFSA]2.0.CO;2
[301]Article [302]Google Scholar
* van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M, Moutoglis P, Streitwolf-Engel R,
Boller T, Wiemken A, Sanders IR (1998b) Mycorrhizal fungal diversity
determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature
396:69-72. doi:[303]10.1038/23932
[304]Article [305]Google Scholar
* van der Heijden MGA, Wiemken A, Sanders IR (2003) Different arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi alter coexistence and resource distribution between
co-occurring plant. New Phytol 157:569-578.
doi:[306]10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00688.x
[307]Article [308]Google Scholar
* van der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, van Straalen NM (2008) The unseen majority:
soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial
ecosystems. Ecol Lett 11:296-310. doi:[309]10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x
[310]Article [311]PubMed [312]Google Scholar
* van der Putten WH, van der Stoel CD (1998) Plant parasitic nematodes and
spatio-temporal variation in natural vegetation. Appl Soil Ecol 10:253-262.
doi:[313]10.1016/S0929-1393(98)00124-3
[314]Article [315]Google Scholar
* van der Putten WH, van Dijk C, Peters BAM (1993) Plant-specific soil-borne
diseases contribute to succession in foredune vegetation. Nature 362:53-56.
doi:[316]10.1038/362053a0
[317]Article [318]Google Scholar
* van der Putten WH, Vet LEM, Harvey JA, Wäckers FL (2001) Linking above- and
belowground multitrophic interactions of plants, herbivores, pathogens, and
their antagonists. Trends in Ecol Evol 16:547-554.
doi:[319]10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02265-0
[320]Article [321]Google Scholar
* van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD et al (2009) Empirical and theoretical
challenges in aboveground-belowground ecology. Oecologia 161:1-14.
doi:[322]10.1007/s00442-009-1351-8
[323]Article [324]PubMed [325]Google Scholar
* Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Klironomos JN, Setälä H, van der Putten WH, Wall DH
(2004) Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science
304:1629-1633. doi:[326]10.1126/science.1094875
[327]Article [328]PubMed [329]CAS [330]Google Scholar
[331]Download references
Acknowledgments
We thank Wim van der Putten, Han Olff, Johan van de Koppel, Peter de Ruiter, and
one anonymous reviewer for comments on previous versions of the manuscript. TR
was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
Research (NWO).
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
1. Theoretical Biology Group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies,
University of Groningen, P.O. Box 11103, 9700 CC, Groningen, The Netherlands
Tomás A. Revilla & Franz J. Weissing
2. Station d'Ecologie Experimentale du CNRS a Moulis, USR 2936, Moulis, 09200,
Saint-Girons, France
Tomás A. Revilla
3. Community and Conservation Ecology Group, Centre for Ecological and
Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 11103, 9700 CC,
Groningen, The Netherlands
G. F. (Ciska) Veen
4. Department of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, P.O. Box
50, 6700 AB, Wageningen, The Netherlands
G. F. (Ciska) Veen
5. Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, 901 83, Umeĺ, Sweden
G. F. (Ciska) Veen
6. Department of Innovation and Environmental Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O.
Box 80155, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Maarten B. Eppinga
7. Instituto de Zoologia y Ecologia Tropical, Universidad Central de Venezuela,
Av. Paseo Los Ilustres, Los Chaguaramos, Caracas, 1041-A, Venezuela
Tomás A. Revilla
Authors
1. Tomás A. Revilla
[332]View author publications
You can also search for this author in [333]PubMed [334]Google Scholar
2. G. F. (Ciska) Veen
[335]View author publications
You can also search for this author in [336]PubMed [337]Google Scholar
3. Maarten B. Eppinga
[338]View author publications
You can also search for this author in [339]PubMed [340]Google Scholar
4. Franz J. Weissing
[341]View author publications
You can also search for this author in [342]PubMed [343]Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to [344]Franz J. Weissing.
Additional information
Tomás A. Revilla and G. F. (Ciska) Veen contributed equally to this paper.
Appendix A: Graphical analysis
Appendix A: Graphical analysis
Figure [345]4 is useful for classifying and describing the main features of the
dynamics in terms of the invasion conditions. For example in cases 1, 2, 11, and
12, it is easy to see that only one species A or B always wins because only one
of them is able to grow for any soil composition. In cases 4 and 14, any resident
species will be protected against invasion, and any equilibrium that may exist
will be competitively unstable, for any soil composition.
However, cases 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 are more complicated. In these situations,
it is sometimes useful to have a graphical representation in the familiar form of
a phase space and nullclines. Although this is possible for a three-dimensional
system like the Bever model, the following two-dimensional representation is more
convenient:
figure a
The phase space is constructed according to the following rules:
* The horizontal axis indicates the plant composition: plant A is dominant on
the right, plant B on the left. The vertical axis indicates soil composition:
A's soil biota dominates on the top, B's soil biota dominates on the bottom.
* The corners represent the plant monocultures, with A [B ], B [B
]corresponding to S [A] = 0, and A [A ], B [A ]corresponding to S [A] = 1.
Depending on the competitive stability conditions (7, 8, 11, 12) and their
soil stability, the corners are classified as stable, unstable, or saddle
points.
* The invasion zones intersected by the feasibility arc become the domains of
attraction in the phase plot, placed in the same order as they are
encountered by traversing the arc from S [A] = 0 to 1 (and using the same
fill patterns).
* If the arc intersects zones III or IV, the corresponding domain of attraction
in the phase plot is divided by a diagonal line. This line, representing
coexistence equilibria, is the plant nullcline, i.e., a nullcline for the
plant composition, not the plant densities. In the case of intersecting zone
III, the plant composition moves towards the line (communities are
competitively stable). In the case of intersection with zone IV, the plant
composition moves away from the line (communities are competitively
unstable).
* The plane is divided by vertical that represents the non-trivial soil
nullcline: S [A] increases at the right of the line (N [A] > vN [B] in Eq.
2), and decreases at the left (N [A] < vN [B] in Eq. 2). The smaller the v
the bigger the portion of the plane where S [A] increases, and vice versa.
The top (S [A] = 1) and the bottom (S [A] = 0) sides of the plane are trivial
soil nullclines.
* A coexistence equilibrium corresponds to the intersection of the plant
nullcline with a soil nullcline, trivial or not. For this reason, there can
be border equilibria where S [A] = 0, S [A] = 1, or an internal equilibrium
where S [A] is intermediate. Depending on its location with respect to the
attraction domains and the non-trivial plant nullcline, an equilibrium is
declared stable, unstable or a saddle point.
Because of symmetry, we do not show cases 6, 8, 16, and 18 because they are
qualitatively equivalent to cases 5, 7, 15, and 17 (by swapping the "A" and "B"
labels). Cases 3 and 13 are very similar in the stability of their monocultures,
and because of having border equilibria. However, they display qualitatively
different dynamics. Under net positive feedbacks (case 3) the system can display
alternative stable states: coexistence with dominance of plant A and its soil
community or coexistence with dominance by plant B and its soil community. On the
other hand, under net negative feedbacks (case 13) there cannot be alternative
stable states, and oscillations may develop (though we suspect they dampen out
given the geometry of the nullclines).
The majority of cases under net positive feedback result in competitive
exclusion. However, some can display alternative stable states, and coexistence
depending on the initial conditions (5 and 6). On the other hand, the majority of
scenarios under net negative feedback promote mutual invasion and coexistence (17
and 18 are the exceptions), including coexistence through oscillations (19 and
20).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 2.0 International License
([346]https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
[347]Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Revilla, T.A., Veen, G.F., Eppinga, M.B. et al. Plant-soil feedbacks and the
coexistence of competing plants. Theor Ecol 6, 99-113 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3
[348]Download citation
* Received: 26 April 2011
* Accepted: 10 May 2012
* Published: 09 June 2012
* Issue Date: May 2013
* DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
(BUTTON) Get shareable link
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
(BUTTON) Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Keywords
* [349]Graphical analysis
* [350]Oscillations
* [351]Diversity
* [352]Plant community dynamics
* [353]Bever model
[354]Use our pre-submission checklist
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Advertisement
Search
Search by keyword or author
____________________ (BUTTON) Search
Navigation
* [355]Find a journal
* [356]Publish with us
* [357]Track your research
Discover content
* [358]Journals A-Z
* [359]Books A-Z
Publish with us
* [360]Publish your research
* [361]Open access publishing
Products and services
* [362]Our products
* [363]Librarians
* [364]Societies
* [365]Partners and advertisers
Our imprints
* [366]Springer
* [367]Nature Portfolio
* [368]BMC
* [369]Palgrave Macmillan
* [370]Apress
* (BUTTON) Your privacy choices/Manage cookies
* [371]Your US state privacy rights
* [372]Accessibility statement
* [373]Terms and conditions
* [374]Privacy policy
* [375]Help and support
* [376]Cancel contracts here
136.243.119.252
Not affiliated
[377]Springer Nature
© 2024 Springer Nature
References
1. https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MRVXSHQ
2. https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MRVXSHQ
3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#main
4. https://link.springer.com/
5. https://idp.springer.com/auth/personal/springernature?redirect_uri=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3
6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#eds-c-header-nav
7. https://link.springer.com/journals/a/1
8. https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors
9. https://link.springernature.com/home/
10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#eds-c-header-popup-search
11. https://order.springer.com/public/cart
12. https://link.springer.com/
13. https://link.springer.com/journal/12080
14. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/about/the-fundamentals-of-open-access-and-open-research
15. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#citeas
16. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3.pdf
17. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/about/the-fundamentals-of-open-access-and-open-research
18. https://link.springer.com/journal/12080
19. https://link.springer.com/journal/12080/aims-and-scope
20. https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12080/3
21. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3.pdf
22. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#auth-Tom_s_A_-Revilla-Aff1-Aff2-Aff7
23. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff1
24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff2
25. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff7
26. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#auth-G__F___Ciska_-Veen-Aff3-Aff4-Aff5
27. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff3
28. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff4
29. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff5
30. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#auth-Maarten_B_-Eppinga-Aff6
31. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff6
32. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#auth-Franz_J_-Weissing-Aff1
33. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Aff1
34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/metrics
35. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR2
37. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
38. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11104-024-06626-6?fromPaywallRec=false
39. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42773-023-00296-w?fromPaywallRec=false
40. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11104-022-05861-z?fromPaywallRec=false
41. https://beta.springernature.com/pre-submission?journalId=12080
42. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR17
43. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR31
44. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR8
45. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR21
46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR10
47. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR14
48. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR22
49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR27
50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR33
51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR35
52. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR37
53. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR38
54. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR39
55. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR41
56. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
57. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR30
58. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
59. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR40
60. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR40
61. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
62. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR2
63. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
64. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR6
65. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR11
66. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR13
67. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR12
68. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR32
69. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
70. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR1
71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
72. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
73. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec2
75. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec3
76. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec8
77. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
78. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec12
79. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
80. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
81. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/1
82. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/1
83. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ3
84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ4
85. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
86. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ3
87. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ4
88. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ7
89. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR9
90. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ5
91. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR9
92. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
93. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR11
94. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
95. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
96. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/2
97. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/2
98. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ10
99. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
100. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig3
101. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ14
102. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ15
103. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig3
104. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
105. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig3
106. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/3
107. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
108. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/3
109. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig3
110. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec5
111. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
112. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR2
113. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ16
114. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
115. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig3
116. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ5
117. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig4
118. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec13
119. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/4
120. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig3
121. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
122. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/4
123. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig5
124. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR5
125. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/5
126. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
127. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
128. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/5
129. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig5
130. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig5
131. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR2
132. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
133. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec8
134. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
135. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR28
136. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
137. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR15
138. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR25
139. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR20
140. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR29
141. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig6
142. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/6
143. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
144. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec13
145. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/6
146. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Sec4
147. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig6
148. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
149. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
150. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
151. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
152. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
153. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
154. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/7
155. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
156. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/7
157. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
158. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
159. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
160. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR28
161. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
162. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
163. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
164. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig6
165. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig6
166. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR28
167. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
168. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig7
169. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Tab1
170. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/tables/1
171. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig8
172. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig8
173. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig8
174. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Equ3
175. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/8
176. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig1
177. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3/figures/8
178. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
179. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
180. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR36
181. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR1
182. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR7
183. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR10
184. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR23
185. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR26
186. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
187. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig3
188. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig2
189. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
190. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR18
191. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR8
192. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR21
193. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR16
194. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR34
195. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR16
196. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR36
197. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR27
198. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR10
199. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR38
200. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR37
201. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR38
202. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
203. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR19
204. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
205. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
206. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR1
207. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR2
208. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR4
209. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR24
210. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#ref-CR3
211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941601
212. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1941601
213. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Feedback%20between%20plants%20and%20their%20soil%20communities%20in%20an%20old%20field%20community&journal=Ecology&doi=10.2307%2F1941601&volume=75&pages=1965-1977&publication_year=1994&author=Bever%2CJD
214. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.1999.21050.x
215. https://doi.org/10.1046%2Fj.1461-0248.1999.21050.x
216. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Dynamics%20within%20mutualism%20and%20the%20maintenance%20of%20diversity%3A%20inference%20from%20a%20model%20of%20interguild%20frequency%20dependence&journal=Ecol%20Lett&doi=10.1046%2Fj.1461-0248.1999.21050.x&volume=2&pages=52-62&publication_year=1999&author=Bever%2CJD
217. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00714.x
218. https://doi.org/10.1046%2Fj.1469-8137.2003.00714.x
219. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Soil%20community%20feedback%20and%20the%20coexistence%20of%20competitors%3A%20conceptual%20frameworks%20and%20empirical%20tests&journal=New%20Phytol&doi=10.1046%2Fj.1469-8137.2003.00714.x&volume=157&pages=465-473&publication_year=2003&author=Bever%2CJD
220. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960528
221. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2960528
222. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Incorporating%20the%20soil%20community%20into%20plant%20population%20dynamics%3A%20the%20utility%20of%20the%20feedback%20approach&journal=J%20Ecol&doi=10.2307%2F2960528&volume=85&pages=561-573&publication_year=1997&author=Bever%2CJD&author=Westover%2CKM&author=Antonovics%2CJ
223. https://doi.org/10.1086/376575
224. https://doi.org/10.1086%2F376575
225. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12858259
226. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Spatial%20dynamics%20in%20model%20plant%20communities%3A%20What%20do%20we%20really%20know%3F&journal=Am%20Nat&doi=10.1086%2F376575&volume=162&pages=135-148&publication_year=2003&author=Bolker%2CBM&author=Pacala%2CSW&author=Neuhauser%2CC
227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13975.x
228. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0030-1299.2005.13975.x
229. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Negative%20plant%E2%80%93soil%20feedback%20and%20species%20coexistence&journal=Oikos&doi=10.1111%2Fj.0030-1299.2005.13975.x&volume=111&pages=311-321&publication_year=2005&author=Bonanomi%2CG&author=Giannino%2CF&author=Mazzoleni%2CS
230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01162.x
231. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2008.01162.x
232. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=18312409
233. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Pathogens%20promote%20plant%20diversity%20through%20a%20compensatory%20response&journal=Ecol%20Lett&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2008.01162.x&volume=11&pages=461-469&publication_year=2008&author=Bradley%2CDJ&author=Gilbert%2CGS&author=Martiny%2CJBH
234. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02322
235. https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature02322
236. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14973484
237. https://link.springer.com/articles/cas-redirect/1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXhtlajsrg%3D
238. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Soil%20biota%20and%20exotic%20plant%20invasion&journal=Nature&doi=10.1038%2Fnature02322&volume=427&pages=731-733&publication_year=2004&author=Callaway%2CRM&author=Thelen%2CGC&author=Rodriguez%2CA&author=Holben%2CWE
239. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=An%20illustrated%20guide%20to%20theoretical%20ecology&publication_year=2000&author=Case%2CT
240. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01548
241. https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature01548
242. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12700759
243. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Soil%20invertebrate%20fauna%20enhances%20grassland%20succession%20and%20diversity&journal=Nature&doi=10.1038%2Fnature01548&volume=422&pages=711-713&publication_year=2003&author=Deyn%2CGB&author=Raaijmakers%2CCE&author=Zoomer%2CHR&author=Berg%2CMP&author=Ruiter%2CPC&author=Verhoef%2CHA&author=Bezemer%2CTM&author=Putten%2CWH
244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14625.x
245. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2006.0030-1299.14625.x
246. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Accumulation%20of%20local%20pathogens%3A%20a%20new%20hypothesis%20to%20explain%20exotic%20plant%20invasions&journal=Oikos&doi=10.1111%2Fj.2006.0030-1299.14625.x&volume=114&pages=168-176&publication_year=2006&author=Eppinga%2CMB&author=Rietkerk%2CM&author=Dekker%2CSC&author=Ruiter%2CPC&author=Putten%2CWH
247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01017.x
248. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2007.01017.x
249. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17355564
250. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Invasiveness%20in%20plant%20communities%20with%20feedbacks&journal=Ecol%20Lett&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2007.01017.x&volume=10&pages=253-263&publication_year=2007&author=Eppstein%2CMJ&author=Molofsky%2CJ
251. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ecolmodel.2006.02.039
252. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Spatio-temporal%20community%20dynamics%20induced%20by%20frequency%20dependent%20interactions&journal=Ecol%20Model&doi=10.1016%2Fj.ecolmodel.2006.02.039&volume=197&pages=133-147&publication_year=2006&author=Eppstein%2CMJ&author=Bever%2CJD&author=Molofsky%2CJ
253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390139
254. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2390139
255. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Vesicular%20arbuscular%20mycorrhizal%20fungi%E2%80%94a%20determinant%20of%20plant%20community%20structure%20in%20early%20succession&journal=Funct%20Ecol&doi=10.2307%2F2390139&volume=7&pages=616-622&publication_year=1993&author=Gange%2CAC&author=Brown%2CVK&author=Sinclair%2CGS
256. https://doi.org/10.1086%2F282973
257. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Limit%20cycles%20in%20competition%20communities&journal=Am%20Nat&doi=10.1086%2F282973&volume=109&pages=51-60&publication_year=1975&author=Gilpin%2CME
258. https://doi.org/10.1038/328420a0
259. https://doi.org/10.1038%2F328420a0
260. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Floristic%20diversity%20in%20a%20model%20system%20using%20experimental%20microcosms&journal=Nature&doi=10.1038%2F328420a0&volume=328&pages=420-422&publication_year=1987&author=Grime%2CJP&author=Mackey%2CJML&author=Hillier%2CSH&author=Read%2CDJ
261. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Plant%20population%20biology&publication_year=1977&author=Harper%2CJL
262. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1187:MIPCSA]2.0.CO;2
263. https://doi.org/10.1890%2F0012-9658%281999%29080%5B1187%3AMIPCSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2
264. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Mycorrhizae%20influence%20plant%20community%20structure%20and%20diversity%20in%20tallgrass%20prairie&journal=Ecology&doi=10.1890%2F0012-9658%281999%29%20080%5B1187%3AMIPCSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2&volume=80&pages=1187-1195&publication_year=1999&author=Hartnett%2CDC&author=Wilson%2CGWT
265. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2682:BCFOAC]2.0.CO;2
266. https://doi.org/10.1890%2F0012-9658%282001%29082%5B2682%3ABCFOAC%5D2.0.CO%3B2
267. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Biological%20conditions%20for%20oscillations%20and%20chaos%20generated%20by%20multispecies%20competition&journal=Ecology&doi=10.1890%2F0012-9658%282001%29%20082%5B2682%3ABCFOAC%5D2.0.CO%3B2&volume=82&pages=2682-2695&publication_year=2001&author=Huisman%2CJ&author=Weissing%2CFJ
268. https://doi.org/10.1038/417067a
269. https://doi.org/10.1038%2F417067a
270. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11986666
271. https://link.springer.com/articles/cas-redirect/1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XjsFOgtbo%3D
272. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Feedback%20with%20soil%20biota%20contributes%20to%20plant%20rarity%20and%20invasiveness%20in%20communities&journal=Nature&doi=10.1038%2F417067a&volume=417&pages=67-70&publication_year=2002&author=Klironomos%2CJN
273. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0413
274. https://doi.org/10.1890%2F02-0413
275. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Variation%20in%20plant%20response%20to%20native%20and%20exotic%20arbuscular%20mycorrhizal%20fungi&journal=Ecology&doi=10.1890%2F02-0413&volume=84&pages=2292-2301&publication_year=2003&author=Klironomos%2CJN
276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x
277. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2008.01209.x
278. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=18522641
279. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Plant%E2%80%93soil%20feedbacks%3A%20a%20meta-analytical%20review&journal=Ecol%20Lett&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2008.01209.x&volume=11&pages=980-992&publication_year=2008&author=Kulmatiski%2CA&author=Beard%2CKH&author=Stevens%2CJR&author=Cobbold%2CSM
280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01784.x
281. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Testing%20predictions%20of%20a%20three-species%20plant%E2%80%93soil%20feedback%20model&journal=J%20Ecol&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1365-2745.2010.01784.x&volume=99&pages=542-550&publication_year=2011&author=Kulmatiski%2CA&author=Heavilin%2CJ&author=Beard%2CKH
282. https://doi.org/10.1137%2F0129022
283. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Nonlinear%20aspects%20of%20competition%20between%203%20species&journal=SIAM%20J%20Appl%20Math&doi=10.1137%2F0129022&volume=29&pages=243-253&publication_year=1975&author=May%2CRM&author=Leonard%2CWJ
284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050823
285. https://doi.org/10.1890%2F0012-9658%281998%29079%5B1595%3AMODWPC%5D2.0.CO%3B2
286. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Maintenance%20of%20diversity%20within%20plant%20communities%3A%20soil%20pathogens%20as%20agents%20of%20negative%20feedback&journal=Ecology&doi=10.1007%2Fs004420050823&volume=79&pages=1595-1601&publication_year=1998&author=Mills%2CKE&author=Bever%2CJD
287. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00008890
288. https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/PL00008890
289. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Small-scale%20shifting%20mosaics%20of%20two%20dominant%20grassland%20species%3A%20the%20possible%20role%20of%20soil-borne%20pathogens&journal=Oecologia&doi=10.1007%2FPL00008890&volume=125&pages=45-54&publication_year=2000&author=Olff%2CH&author=Hoorens%2CB&author=Goede%2CRGM&author=Putten%2CWH&author=Gleichman%2CJM
290. https://doi.org/org/10.1890/07-1103.1
291. https://doi.org/10.1890%2F07-1103.1
292. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=18459349
293. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Nonequilibrium%20coexistence%20in%20a%20competition%20model%20with%20nutrient%20storage&journal=Ecology&doi=org%2F10.1890%2F07-1103.1&volume=89&pages=865-877&publication_year=2008&author=Revilla%2CT&author=Weissing%2CFJ
294. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0298
295. https://doi.org/10.1890%2F02-0298
296. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Grassroots%20ecology%3A%20plant%E2%80%93microbe%E2%80%93soil%20interactions%20as%20drivers%20of%20plant%20community%20structure%20and%20dynamics&journal=Ecology&doi=10.1890%2F02-0298&volume=84&pages=2281-2291&publication_year=2003&author=Reynolds%2CHL&author=Packer%2CA&author=Bever%2CJD&author=Clay%2CK
297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00714.x
298. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2004.00714.x
299. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Simple%20rules%20for%20the%20coexistence%20and%20competitive%20dominance%20of%20plants%20mediated%20by%20mycorrhizal%20fungi&journal=Ecol%20Lett&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2004.00714.x&volume=8&pages=247-252&publication_year=2005&author=Umbanhowar%2CJ&author=McCann%2CK
300. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2082:DAMFSA]2.0.CO;2
301. https://doi.org/10.1890%2F0012-9658%281998%29079%5B2082%3ADAMFSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2
302. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Different%20arbuscular%20mycorrhizal%20fungal%20species%20are%20potential%20determinants%20of%20plant%20community%20structure&journal=Ecology&doi=10.1890%2F0012-9658%281998%29%20079%5B2082%3ADAMFSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2&volume=79&pages=2082-2091&publication_year=1998&author=Heijden%2CMGA&author=Boller%2CT&author=Wiemken%2CA&author=Sanders%2CIR
303. https://doi.org/10.1038/23932
304. https://doi.org/10.1038%2F23932
305. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Mycorrhizal%20fungal%20diversity%20determines%20plant%20biodiversity%2C%20ecosystem%20variability%20and%20productivity&journal=Nature&doi=10.1038%2F23932&volume=396&pages=69-72&publication_year=1998&author=Heijden%2CMGA&author=Klironomos%2CJN&author=Ursic%2CM&author=Moutoglis%2CP&author=Streitwolf-Engel%2CR&author=Boller%2CT&author=Wiemken%2CA&author=Sanders%2CIR
306. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00688.x
307. https://doi.org/10.1046%2Fj.1469-8137.2003.00688.x
308. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Different%20arbuscular%20mycorrhizal%20fungi%20alter%20coexistence%20and%20resource%20distribution%20between%20co-occurring%20plant&journal=New%20Phytol&doi=10.1046%2Fj.1469-8137.2003.00688.x&volume=157&pages=569-578&publication_year=2003&author=Heijden%2CMGA&author=Wiemken%2CA&author=Sanders%2CIR
309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x
310. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2007.01139.x
311. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=18047587
312. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=The%20unseen%20majority%3A%20soil%20microbes%20as%20drivers%20of%20plant%20diversity%20and%20productivity%20in%20terrestrial%20ecosystems&journal=Ecol%20Lett&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1461-0248.2007.01139.x&volume=11&pages=296-310&publication_year=2008&author=Heijden%2CMGA&author=Bardgett%2CRD&author=Straalen%2CNM
313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(98)00124-3
314. https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0929-1393%2898%2900124-3
315. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Plant%20parasitic%20nematodes%20and%20spatio-temporal%20variation%20in%20natural%20vegetation&journal=Appl%20Soil%20Ecol&doi=10.1016%2FS0929-1393%2898%2900124-3&volume=10&pages=253-262&publication_year=1998&author=Putten%2CWH&author=Stoel%2CCD
316. https://doi.org/10.1038/362053a0
317. https://doi.org/10.1038%2F362053a0
318. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Plant-specific%20soil-borne%20diseases%20contribute%20to%20succession%20in%20foredune%20vegetation&journal=Nature&doi=10.1038%2F362053a0&volume=362&pages=53-56&publication_year=1993&author=Putten%2CWH&author=Dijk%2CC&author=Peters%2CBAM
319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02265-0
320. https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0169-5347%2801%2902265-0
321. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Linking%20above-%20and%20belowground%20multitrophic%20interactions%20of%20plants%2C%20herbivores%2C%20pathogens%2C%20and%20their%20antagonists&journal=Trends%20in%20Ecol%20Evol&doi=10.1016%2FS0169-5347%2801%2902265-0&volume=16&pages=547-554&publication_year=2001&author=Putten%2CWH&author=Vet%2CLEM&author=Harvey%2CJA&author=W%C3%A4ckers%2CFL
322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1351-8
323. https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/s00442-009-1351-8
324. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=19412705
325. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Empirical%20and%20theoretical%20challenges%20in%20aboveground%E2%80%93belowground%20ecology&journal=Oecologia&doi=10.1007%2Fs00442-009-1351-8&volume=161&pages=1-14&publication_year=2009&author=Putten%2CWH&author=Bardgett%2CRD
326. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094875
327. https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1094875
328. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15192218
329. https://link.springer.com/articles/cas-redirect/1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXks1Cgsrs%3D
330. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?&title=Ecological%20linkages%20between%20aboveground%20and%20belowground%20biota&journal=Science&doi=10.1126%2Fscience.1094875&volume=304&pages=1629-1633&publication_year=2004&author=Wardle%2CDA&author=Bardgett%2CRD&author=Klironomos%2CJN&author=Set%C3%A4l%C3%A4%2CH&author=Putten%2CWH&author=Wall%2CDH
331. https://citation-needed.springer.com/v2/references/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3?format=refman&flavour=references
332. https://link.springer.com/search?dc.creator=Tom%C3%A1s%20A.%20Revilla
333. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Tom%C3%A1s%20A.%20Revilla
334. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22Tom%C3%A1s%20A.%20Revilla%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en
335. https://link.springer.com/search?dc.creator=G.%20F.%20%28Ciska%29%20Veen
336. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=G.%20F.%20%28Ciska%29%20Veen
337. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22G.%20F.%20%28Ciska%29%20Veen%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en
338. https://link.springer.com/search?dc.creator=Maarten%20B.%20Eppinga
339. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Maarten%20B.%20Eppinga
340. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22Maarten%20B.%20Eppinga%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en
341. https://link.springer.com/search?dc.creator=Franz%20J.%20Weissing
342. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Franz%20J.%20Weissing
343. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22Franz%20J.%20Weissing%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en
344. mailto:f.j.weissing@rug.nl
345. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3#Fig4
346. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
347. https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?title=Plant%E2%80%93soil%20feedbacks%20and%20the%20coexistence%20of%20competing%20plants&author=Tom%C3%A1s%20A.%20Revilla%20et%20al&contentID=10.1007%2Fs12080-012-0163-3©right=The%20Author%28s%29&publication=1874-1738&publicationDate=2012-06-09&publisherName=SpringerNature&orderBeanReset=true&oa=CC%20BY
348. https://citation-needed.springer.com/v2/references/10.1007/s12080-012-0163-3?format=refman&flavour=citation
349. https://link.springer.com/search?query=Graphical%20analysis&facet-discipline="Life%20Sciences"
350. https://link.springer.com/search?query=Oscillations&facet-discipline="Life%20Sciences"
351. https://link.springer.com/search?query=Diversity&facet-discipline="Life%20Sciences"
352. https://link.springer.com/search?query=Plant%20community%20dynamics&facet-discipline="Life%20Sciences"
353. https://link.springer.com/search?query=Bever%20model&facet-discipline="Life%20Sciences"
354. https://beta.springernature.com/pre-submission?journalId=12080
355. https://link.springer.com/journals/a/1
356. https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors
357. https://link.springernature.com/home/
358. https://link.springer.com/journals/a/1
359. https://link.springer.com/books/a/1
360. https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors
361. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/about/the-fundamentals-of-open-access-and-open-research
362. https://www.springernature.com/gp/products
363. https://www.springernature.com/gp/librarians
364. https://www.springernature.com/gp/societies
365. https://www.springernature.com/gp/partners
366. https://www.springer.com/
367. https://www.nature.com/
368. https://www.biomedcentral.com/
369. https://www.palgrave.com/
370. https://www.apress.com/
371. https://www.springernature.com/gp/legal/ccpa
372. https://www.springernature.com/gp/info/accessibility
373. https://link.springer.com/termsandconditions
374. https://link.springer.com/privacystatement
375. https://support.springernature.com/en/support/home
376. https://support.springernature.com/de/support/solutions/articles/6000255911-k%C3%BCndigungsformular
377. https://www.springernature.com/
Usage: http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/URL
e.g. http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/http://www.kk-software.de
Errormessages are in German, sorry ;-)