PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

J

• Abbott, K. C. (2011). A dispersal‐induced paradox: Synchrony and stability in stochastic metapopulations. Ecology Letters, 14(11), 1158-1169. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01670.x.

• Addicott, J. F. (1979). A multispecies aphid–ant association: Density dependence and species-specific effects. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 57(3), 558–569. doi: 10.1139/z79-066.

• Addicott, J. F. (1998). Regulation of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths: Population level processes. Oikos, 81(1), 119-129. doi: 10.2307/3546474.

• Amarasekare, P. (2015). Evolution of dispersal in a multi-trophic community context. Oikos, 125(4), 514–525. doi: 10.1111/oik.02258.

• Aslan, C. E., Zavaleta, E. S., Tershy, B., & Croll, D. (2013). Mutualism disruption threatens global plant biodiversity: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 8(6), 1-11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066993.

• Barraquand, F., Louca, S., Abbott, K. C., Cobbold, C. A., Cordoleani, F., DeAngelis, D. L., … & Murray, D. L. (2017). Moving forward in circles: Challenges and opportunities in modelling population cycles. Ecology Letters, 20(8), 1074–1092. doi: 10.1111/ele.12789.

• Bascompte, J. (2019). Mutualism and biodiversity. Current Biology, 29(11), R467–R470. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.03.062.

• Bever, J. D. (2003). Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: Conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytologist, 157(3), 465-473. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00714.x.

• Bjørnstad, O. N. (2000). Cycles and synchrony: Two historical “experiments” and one experience. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69(5), 869-873. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00444.x.

• Bonte, D., Vandenbroecke, N., Lens, L., & Maelfait, J. P. (2003). Low propensity for aerial dispersal in specialist spiders from fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1524), 1601-1607. doi: doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2432.

• Briggs, C. J., & Hoopes, M. F. (2004). Stabilizing effects in spatial parasitoid–host and predator–prey models: A review. Theoretical Population Biology, 65(3), 299-315. doi: 10.1016/j.tpb.2003.11.001.

• Bronstein, J. L. (2001a). The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecology Letters, 4(3), 277-287. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00218.x.

• Bronstein, J. L. (2001b). The costs of mutualism. American Zoologist, 41(4), 825-839. doi: 10.1093/icb/41.4.825.

• Bruno, J. F., Stachowicz, J. J., & Bertness, M. D. (2003). Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(3), 119-125. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(02)00045-9.

• Caro, T., & Stoner, C. (2003). The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biological Conservation, 110(1), 67-75. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00177-5.

• Carter, N., Jasny, M., Gurung, B., & Liu, J. (2015). Impacts of people and tigers on leopard spatiotemporal activity patterns in a global biodiversity hotspot. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 149-162. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.11.013.

• Chaianunporn, T., & Hovestadt, T. (2012). Evolution of dispersal in metacommunities of interacting species. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(12), 2511-2525. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02620.x.

• Chaianunporn, T., & Hovestadt, T. (2015). Evolutionary responses to climate change in parasitic systems. Global Change Biology, 21(8), 2905-2916. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12944.

• Cheng, B. S., Ruiz, G. M., Altieri, A. H., & Torchin, M. E. (2018). The biogeography of invasion in tropical and temperate seagrass beds: Testing interactive effects of predation and propagule pressure. Diversity and Distributions, 25(2), 285-297. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12850.

• Chesson, P. (2000). Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31(1), 343-366. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343.

• Chesson, P., & Kuang, J. J. (2008). The interaction between predation and competition. Nature, 456(7219), 235-238. doi: 10.1038/nature07248.

• Chomicki, G., Weber, M., Antonelli, A., Bascompte, J., & Kiers, E. T. (2019). The impact of mutualisms on species richness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 34(8), 698-711. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.003.

• Dey, S., & Joshi, A. (2006). Stability via asynchrony in drosophila metapopulations with low migration rates. Science, 312(5772), 434-436. doi: 10.1126/science.1125317.

• Dytham, C. (2009). Evolved dispersal strategies at range margins. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1661), 1407-1413. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1535.

• Fontaine, C., Guimarães Jr, P. R., Kéfi, S., Loeuille, N., Memmott, J., van Der Putten, W. H., … & Thébault, E. (2011). The ecological and evolutionary implications of merging different types of networks. Ecology Letters, 14(11), 1170-1181. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01688.x.

• Gause, G. F., & Witt, A. A. (1935). Behavior of mixed populations and the problem of natural selection. The American Naturalist, 69(725), 596-609. doi: 10.1086/280628.

• Georgelin, E., & Loeuille, N. (2014). Dynamics of coupled mutualistic and antagonistic interactions, and their implications for ecosystem management. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 346, 67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.12.012.

• Godsoe, W., Murray, R., & Plank, M. J. (2015). Information on biotic interactions improves transferability of distribution models. The American Naturalist, 185(2), 281-290. doi: 10.1086/679440.

• Green, D. M. (2009). Coevolution of dispersal in a parasitoid–host system. Population Ecology, 51(2), 253-260. doi: 10.1007/s10144-008-0131-3.

• Hanski, I. (1998). Metapopulation dynamics. Nature, 396(6706), 41-49. doi: 10.1038/23876.

• Herrera, C. M. (1998). Long-term dynamics of Mediterranean Frugivorous birds and fleshy fruits: A 12-year study. Ecological Monographs, 68(4), 511-538. doi: 10.1890/0012-9615(1998)068[0511:ltdomf]2.0.c.

• Hixon, M. A., & Menge, B. A. (1991). Species diversity: Prey refuges modify the interactive effects of predation and competition. Theoretical Population Biology, 39(2), 178-200. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(91)90035-e.

• Holland, J. N., & DeAngelis, D. L. (2010). A consumer–resource approach to the density-dependent population dynamics of mutualism. Ecology, 91(5), 1286-1295. doi: 10.1890/09-1163.1.

• Holland, J. N., DeAngelis, D. L., & Bronstein, J. L. (2002). Population dynamics and mutualism: Functional responses of benefits and costs. The American Naturalist, 159(3), 231-244. doi: 10.1086/338510.

• Holland, J. N., Wang, Y., Sun, S., & DeAngelis, D. L. (2013). Consumer–resource dynamics of indirect interactions in a mutualism–parasitism food web module. Theoretical Ecology, 6(4), 475-493. doi: 10.1007/s12080-013-0181-9.

• Johnson, C. N., Isaac, J. L., & Fisher, D. O. (2007). Rarity of a top predator triggers continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: Dingoes and marsupials in Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 341-346. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3711.

• Kendall, B. E., Bjørnstad, O. N., Bascompte, J., Keitt, T. H., & Fagan, W. F. (2000). Dispersal, environmental correlation, and spatial synchrony in population dynamics. The American Naturalist, 155(5), 628-636. doi: 10.1086/303350.

• Kerr, B., Riley, M. A., Feldman, M. W., & Bohannan, B. J. M. (2002). Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock–paper–scissors. Nature, 418(6894), 171-174. doi: 10.1038/nature00823.

• Kindlmann, P., & Burel, F. (2008). Connectivity measures: A review. Landscape Ecology, 23(8), 879-890. doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9245-4.

• Kooi, B. W., Kuijper, L. D. J., & Kooijman, S. A. L. M. (2004). Consequences of symbiosis for food web dynamics. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 49(3), 227-271. doi: 10.1007/s00285-003-0256-0.

• Kool, J. T., Moilanen, A., & Treml, E. A. (2012). Population connectivity: Recent advances and new perspectives. Landscape Ecology, 28(2), 165-185. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9819-z.

• Kot, M., Lewis, M. A., & van den Driessche, P. (1996). Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology, 77(7), 2027-2042. doi: 10.2307/2265698.

• Laan, E., & Fox, J. W. (2019). An experimental test of the effects of dispersal and the paradox of enrichment on metapopulation persistence. Oikos, 129(1), 49-58 doi: 10.1111/oik.06552.

• Lampert, A., & Hastings, A. (2016). Stability and distribution of predator-prey systems: Local and regional mechanisms and patterns. Ecology Letters, 19(3), 279-288. doi: 10.1111/ele.12565.

• Martignoni, M. M., Hart, M. M., Tyson, R. C., & Garnier, J. (In Press). Diversity within mutualist guilds promotes coexistence and reduces the risk of invasion from an alien mutualist. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2312.

• Mitani, N., & Mougi, A. (2017). Population cycles emerging through multiple interaction types. Royal Society Open Science, 4(9), 1-7. doi: 10.1098/rsos.170536.

• Mohd, M. H. (2019). Diversity in interaction strength promotes rich dynamical behaviours in a three-species ecological system. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 353, 243-253. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2019.02.007.

• Mohd, M. H., Murray, R., Plank, M. J., & Godsoe, W. (2017). Effects of biotic interactions and dispersal on the presence-absence of multiple species. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 99, 185-194. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2017.04.012.

• Mohd, M. H., Murray, R., Plank, M. J., & Godsoe, W. (2018). Effects of different dispersal patterns on the presence-absence of multiple species. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 56, 115-130. doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2017.07.029.

• Mondor, E. B., Rosenheim, J. A., & Addicott, J. F. (2004). Predator-induced transgenerational phenotypic plasticity in the cotton aphid. Oecologia, 142(1), 104-108. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1710-4.

• Morales, M. A. (2000). Mechanisms and density dependence of benefit in an ant–membracid mutualism. Ecology, 81(2), 482-489. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0482:MADDOB]2.0.CO;2.

• Ojonubah, J. O., & Mohd, M. H. (2020). Impacts of asymmetric biotic interactions and environmental factors on the presence-absence of multispecies. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 28(1), 245-261.

• Parker, M. A. (1999). Mutualism in metapopulations of legumes and rhizobia. The American Naturalist, 153(S5), S48-S60. doi: 10.1086/303211.

• Pascual-García, A., & Bastolla, U. (2017). Mutualism supports biodiversity when the direct competition is weak. Nature Communications, 8(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14326

• Poethke, H. J., Weisser, W. W., & Hovestadt, T. (2010). Predator‐induced dispersal and the evolution of conditional dispersal in correlated environments. The American Naturalist, 175(5), 577-586. doi: 10.1086/651595.

• Quinn, T. P., Cunningham, C. J., & Wirsing, A. J. (2016). Diverse foraging opportunities drive the functional response of local and landscape-scale bear predation on Pacific salmon. Oecologia, 183(2), 415-429. doi: 10.1007/s00442-016-3782-3.

• Rosenzweig, M. L. (1971). Paradox of enrichment: Destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time. Science, 171(3969), 385-387. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3969.385.

• Rosenzweig, M. L., & MacArthur, R. H. (1963). Graphical representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. The American Naturalist, 97(895), 209-223. doi: 10.1086/282272.

• Rozhnova, G., Metcalf, C. J. E., & Grenfell, B. T. (2013). Characterizing the dynamics of rubella relative to measles: The role of stochasticity. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 10(88), 20130643-20130643. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2013.0643.

• Sala, E. (2006). Top predators provide insurance against climate change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21(9), 479-480. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.07.006.

• Schmitt, R. J., & Holbrook, S. J. (2003). Mutualism can mediate competition and promote coexistence. Ecology Letters, 6(10), 898-902. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00514.x.

• Schmitz, O. J. (2006). Predators have large effects on ecosystem properties by changing plant diversity, not plant biomass. Ecology, 87(6), 1432-1437. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1432:phleoe]2.0.co;2.

• Soulé, M. E., & Terborgh, J. (1999). Conserving nature at regional and continental scales-a scientific program for North America. BioScience, 49(10), 809-817. doi: 10.2307/1313572.

• Steiner, C. F., Stockwell, R. D., Kalaimani, V., & Aqel, Z. (2013). Population synchrony and stability in environmentally forced metacommunities. Oikos, 122(8), 1195-1206. doi: 10.1111/j.1600- 0706.2012.20936.x.

• Swanson, A., Arnold, T., Kosmala, M., Forester, J., & Packer, C. (2016). In the absence of a “landscape of fear”: How lions, hyenas, and cheetahs coexist. Ecology and Evolution, 6(23), 8534-8545. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2569.

• Valdovinos, F. S., Berlow, E. L., Moisset de Espanés, P., Ramos-Jiliberto, R., Vázquez, D. P., & Martinez, N. D. (2018). Species traits and network structure predict the success and impacts of pollinator invasions. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04593-y.

• Valdovinos, F. S., Brosi, B. J., Briggs, H. M., Moisset de Espanés, P., Ramos-Jiliberto, R., & Martinez, N. D. (2016). Niche partitioning due to adaptive foraging reverses effects of nestedness and connectance on pollination network stability. Ecology Letters, 19(10), 1277-1286. doi: 10.1111/ele.12664.

• Vasseur, D. A., & Fox, J. W. (2009). Phase-locking and environmental fluctuations generate synchrony in a predator–prey community. Nature, 460(7258), 1007-1010. doi: 10.1038/nature08208.

• Vogwill, T., Fenton, A., & Brockhurst, M. A. (2009). Dispersal and natural enemies interact to drive spatial synchrony and decrease stability in patchy populations. Ecology Letters, 12(11), 1194-1200. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01374.x.

• Wright, D. H. (1989). A simple, stable model of mutualism incorporating handling time. The American Naturalist, 134(4), 664-667. doi: 10.1086/285003.

• Yaari, G., Ben-Zion, Y., Shnerb, N. M., & Vasseur, D. A. (2012). Consistent scaling of persistence time in metapopulations. Ecology, 93(5), 1214-1227. doi: 10.1890/11-1077.1.s.