Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Competition

Competition

When organisms require the same limited resources within an environment, they may have to compete for them. Competition is a net-negative interaction. Even if two competing individuals or populations do not interact directly, the overall fitness of both competitors is lowered as a result of not having full access to the limited resource.Intraspecific competition, which occurs between individuals of the same species, serves as a natural mechanism for regulating population size. Too much...

Microbial Interactions: Competition

Microbial Interactions: Competition

Microbial competition is an ecological interaction in which microorganisms vie for limited resources within shared environments. These resources may include nutrients, space, or light, depending on the system. The intensity and outcome of competition are influenced by the environmental context, such as nutrient availability, spatial constraints, and the diversity of microbial species present. These competitive interactions significantly influence the structure, function, and resilience of...

Ecological Niches

Ecological Niches

All organisms have a position within an ecosystem. The complete set of living and nonliving factors—including food resources, climate, and terrain—that define the position of a given organism are collectively referred to as the organism’s ecological niche.Multiple species cannot occupy the exact same niche within their habitat. If the niches of two or more species overlap to a large extent, the competitive exclusion principle dictates that one species will outcompete the other, forcing it to...

Frequency-dependent Selection

Frequency-dependent Selection

When the fitness of a trait is influenced by how common it is (i.e., its frequency) relative to different traits within a population, this is referred to as frequency-dependent selection. Frequency-dependent selection may occur between species or within a single species. This type of selection can either be positive—with more common phenotypes having higher fitness—or negative, with rarer phenotypes conferring increased fitness.Positive Frequency-Dependent SelectionIn positive...

Types of Selection

Types of Selection

Natural selection influences the frequencies of particular alleles and phenotypes within populations in several different ways. Primarily, natural selection can be directional, stabilizing, or disruptive. Directional selection favors one extreme trait and shifts the population towards that phenotype while selecting against individuals displaying alternate traits. Stabilizing selection favors an intermediate trait with a narrow range of variation. Deviation from the optimal phenotype towards an...

Impact of Groups on Groups

Impact of Groups on Groups

Social psychologists analyze how groups influence one another, shaping social structures and interactions through both cooperation and competition. These dynamics manifest in various ways, ranging from economic partnerships to intergroup conflicts that shape societal structures and perceptions.Cooperation and Competition in Intergroup RelationsIntergroup relationships vary across contexts, sometimes fostering cooperation and mutual benefit while at other times leading to conflict and...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Speciation History Shapes Patterns of Assemblage Species Richness in Birds.

Ecology letters·2026

Same author

A user-friendly guide to using distance measures to compare time series in ecology.

Ecology and evolution·2023

Same author

Quantifying reliability and data deficiency in global vertebrate population trends using the Living Planet Index.

Global change biology·2023

Same author

Are experiment sample sizes adequate to detect biologically important interactions between multiple stressors?

Ecology and evolution·2022

Same author

Priority effects and the macroevolutionary dynamics of biodiversity.

Ecology letters·2021

Same author

Classifying ecosystem stressor interactions: Theory highlights the data limitations of the additive null model and the difficulty in revealing ecological surprises.

Global change biology·2021

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 11, 2026

Monitoring Spatial Segregation in Surface Colonizing Microbial Populations

Monitoring Spatial Segregation in Surface Colonizing Microbial Populations

Published on: October 29, 2016

When does local spatial structure hinder competitive coexistence and reverse competitive hierarchies?

David J Murrell¹

¹Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, Alfred Denny Building, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom. d.murrell@ucl.ac.uk

|June 30, 2010

Summary

Spatial structure can hinder biodiversity by promoting within-species aggregation. Intense intraspecific competition, even for rare species, may prevent coexistence, reversing dominance hierarchies and excluding species.

More Related Videos

Experimental Protocol for Manipulating Plant-induced Soil Heterogeneity

Experimental Protocol for Manipulating Plant-induced Soil Heterogeneity

Published on: March 13, 2014

Monitoring Intraspecies Competition in a Bacterial Cell Population by Cocultivation of Fluorescently Labelled Strains

Monitoring Intraspecies Competition in a Bacterial Cell Population by Cocultivation of Fluorescently Labelled Strains

Published on: January 18, 2014

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 11, 2026

Monitoring Spatial Segregation in Surface Colonizing Microbial Populations

Monitoring Spatial Segregation in Surface Colonizing Microbial Populations

Published on: October 29, 2016

Experimental Protocol for Manipulating Plant-induced Soil Heterogeneity

Experimental Protocol for Manipulating Plant-induced Soil Heterogeneity

Published on: March 13, 2014

Monitoring Intraspecies Competition in a Bacterial Cell Population by Cocultivation of Fluorescently Labelled Strains

Monitoring Intraspecies Competition in a Bacterial Cell Population by Cocultivation of Fluorescently Labelled Strains

Published on: January 18, 2014

Area of Science:

Ecology
Population Dynamics
Biodiversity Studies

Background:

Classical ecological theory posits that coexistence occurs when intraspecific competition exceeds interspecific competition.
Limited dispersal leads to within-species aggregation and between-species segregation, a spatial pattern theorized to promote biodiversity.
The prevailing view suggests spatial structure generally aids competitor coexistence.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate whether spatial structure universally promotes biodiversity, particularly in communities with strong niche differentiation.
To analyze the impact of local spatial structure on Lotka-Volterra competition dynamics.
To determine the conditions under which spatial aggregation may hinder species coexistence.

Main Methods:

Development of an individual-based model extending the Lotka-Volterra competition equations.
Mathematical approximation of the individual-based model.
Analysis of model outcomes under varying spatial structures and competition intensities.

Main Results:

Strong spatial structure can prevent coexistence even when intraspecific competition is greater than interspecific competition, potentially leading to the exclusion of species with high intraspecific competition.
Dominance hierarchies can be reversed; species may become subordinate due to intense local conspecific interactions, especially at short spatial scales.
Within-species aggregation can impede invasion by rare species if conspecific interactions are intense, while long-range dispersal can mitigate these effects.

Conclusions:

Within-species aggregation, contrary to some theories, can hinder biodiversity by intensifying local competition.
The intensity of intraspecific competition and the spatial scale of interactions are critical factors determining coexistence.
These findings are particularly relevant for sessile organisms with limited dispersal and low offspring viability.