1. Individual-based storage promotes coexistence in neutral communities

2. Plants Mast Mast – Trees hold seeds across reproductive seasons Seedbanks Seedbanks – Seeds accumulate in soil without reproducing each season www.grazulis.com

3. Vertebrates http://frank.itlab.us/silverglen_2004/large/turtle_fish.jpg

4. Protists and Plankton interactive.usc.edu/members/rosenblj/archives/plankton.jp g

5. Prokaryotes May persist for thousand to millions of years in dormant stages May persist for thousand to millions of years in dormant stages Most bacteria in natural systems are inactive Most bacteria in natural systems are inactive blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/files/2008/04/bacteria.jpg

6. Periods of delayed growth and reproduction: Storage Effect: The interaction between variable recruitment and high, less variable, adult survivorship that allows populations to be maintained over long periods by relatively few but large reproductive events

7. Storage Effect, proper Requires Individual-based species differential responses to environmental change Overlapping generations or long-lived reproductive stages Increased intraspecific competition with increased species abundance

8. Problems with the Storage Effect Requires explicit assumptions of competitive asymmetries and niche differences Relies on environmental change to maintain a compositional species equilibrium Does not account for speciation and does not allow for extinction.

9. Question: Is it possible to investigate the effects of storage without the assumptions of the Storage Hypothesis?

10. Answer: Introduce a storage stage into a theory that makes no assumptions of environmental change or niche differences

11. Ecological Neutral Theory All individuals of all species are assumed to be equivalent in life-history probabilities Demographic change occurs stochastically and is only influenced by the effect of relative abundance on dispersal, speciation, and extinction All species can go extinct Models effects of speciation

12. Ecological Neutral Theory Operates via life-history processes death birth Local Community, J immigration

13. Ecological Neutral Theory Pr{N i +1|N i } = µ(J-N i /J)(N i /J-1) Local Community, J µ(J-N i /J) (N i /J-1)

14. Ecological Neutral Theory: Introducing a storage stage death birth Local Community, J

15. Ecological Neutral Theory: Introducing a storage stage inactivity birth Local Community, J

16. Ecological Neutral Theory: Introducing a storage stage inactivity birth Active Pool, J A Inactive Pool, J I

17. Ecological Neutral Theory: Introducing a storage stage inactivity birth Active Pool, J A Inactive Pool, J I death

18. Ecological Neutral Theory: Introducing a storage stage inactivity birth Active Pool, J A Inactive Pool, J I death activity

19. Ecological Neutral Theory: Introducing a storage stage inactivity birth Active Pool, J A Inactive Pool, J I death activity immigration

20. Ecological Neutral Theory: Introducing a storage stage Pr{Ni+1|Ni} = µ(N iA /J A )*γ(J I -N iI )/(J I +1)*N iA /(J-1) = µ(N iA /J A ) N iA /(J-1) Active Pool, J A Inactive Pool, J I γ(J I -N iI )/(J I +1)

21. Simulations in Perl Simulate times to extinction or monodominance for isolated communities Simulate growth of the inactive pool – Not explicitly constrained – Begins from zero abundance Simulate immigration from a metacommunity using a spatially implicit approach

22. Time to fixation increases with initial abundance and decreased death rate, N = 2

23. Time to extinction increases with initial abundance and decreased death rate, N = 6

24. Time to fixation for a given death rate is not affected, or is barely affected, by species richness Ja = 100Ja = 500 0.6 0.8 1.0

25. The inactive pool oscillates within a narrow range without any explicit bounds, even when starting from zero abundance

26. Size of the inactive pool is highly influenced by death rate and size of the active pool. Fluctuating behavior of the inactive pool is apparently not affected by species richness

27. Spatially Implicit Metacommunity Migration into Inactive Pool – Is not competitive, assume a constant rate Migration into Active Pool – Is competitive, assume a constant probability Question: – Do we observe different distributions than Hubbell’s model? For J, Ja, and Jd? – Does migration cause the inactive community to grow unrealistically?

28. Inactive pool reaches unrealistic abundances under low death and very high immigration

29. 64 species Metacommunity, local active pool (n = 1000) γ = 1.0, m d = 0.2

30. Hints at a multinomial distribution?

31. When immigration into the inactive pool decreases to 0.1 and death rate is at 1.0, the distribution resembles a log-series; even though the parameters are approaching Hubbell’s model.

32. Future steps in simulations Speciation Spatially explicit model Perl > Matlab More species, larger (meta)communities

33. Transition Probabilities: Focal species N i in an isolated local community Pr{N i +1|N i } = µ*N ia (J a -1)/J a (J-γ)*(1-γN iI /J I ) Pr{N i -1|N i } = µγ*(N iI /J I )*(N ia (1-J a )/J a (J-γ) +1) Pr{N i |N i } = 1- [(µ*N ia (J a -1)/J a (J-γ)*(1-γN iI /J I ) + (µγ*(N iI /J I )*(N ia (1-J a )/J a (J-γ) +1)]

34. Markov Tables representing transition among states of abundance (0 to J), for species N i M = Rows: abundance at time T Columns: abundance at time T+1 Matrix entries: probabilities of transitioning from between abundance states Entries on the diagonal represent the probability of maintaining the same abundance across time steps ≠

36. Model the interaction of two or more synchronized stochastic processes – Change in active pool, change in inactive pool Useful when abundance states can grow rapidly and when processes are only partially dependent

37. M J = 2 N1N1 N2N2 m