Janneke HilleRisLambers

Although research on the role of competitive interactions during community assembly began decades ago, a recent revival of interest has led to new discoveries and research opportunities. Using contemporary coexistence theory that emphasizes stabilizing niche differences and relative fitness differences, we evaluate three empirical approaches for studying community assembly. We show that experimental manipulations of the abiotic or biotic environment, assessments of trait-phylogeny-environment relationships, and investigations of frequency-dependent population growth all suggest strong influences of stabilizing niche differences and fitness differences on the outcome of plant community assembly. Nonetheless, due to the limitations of these approaches applied in isolation, we still have a poor understanding of which niche axes and which traits determine the outcome of competition and community structure. Combining current approaches represents our best chance of achieving this goal, which is fundamental to conceptual ecology and to the management of plant communities under global change.

Ecologists now recognize that controversy over the relative importance of niches and neutrality cannot be resolved by analyzing species abundance patterns. Here, we use classical coexistence theory to reframe the debate in terms of stabilizing mechanisms (niches) and fitness equivalence (neutrality). The neutral model is a special case where stabilizing mechanisms are absent and species have equivalent fitness. Instead of asking whether niches or neutral processes structure communities, we advocate determining the degree to which observed diversity reflects strong stabilizing mechanisms overcoming large fitness differences or weak stabilization operating on species of similar fitness. To answer this question, we propose combining data on per capita growth rates with models to: (i) quantify the strength of stabilizing processes; (ii) quantify fitness inequality and compare it with stabilization; and (iii) manipulate frequency dependence in growth to test the consequences of stabilization and fitness equivalence for coexistence.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics instructors have been charged with improving the performance and retention of students from diverse backgrounds. To date, programs that close the achievement gap between students from disadvantaged versus nondisadvantaged educational backgrounds have required extensive extramural funding. We show that a highly structured course design, based on daily and weekly practice with problem-solving, data analysis, and other higher-order cognitive skills, improved the performance of all students in a college-level introductory biology class and reduced the achievement gap between disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged students--without increased expenditures. These results support the Carnegie Hall hypothesis: Intensive practice, via active-learning exercises, has a disproportionate benefit for capable but poorly prepared students.