Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39988962›Full record

ArticleEcology2025

Coexistence of coinvading species with mutualism and competition.

Naven Narayanan, Peter Lutz, Allison K Shaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Naven NarayananSimons Centre for the Study of Living Systems, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3855-5656
Peter LutzDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, Behavior, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Allison K ShawDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, Behavior, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7969-8365

Funding

Division of Environmental Biology 2109965National Science Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All interactions between multiple species invading together (coinvasion) must be accounted for to predict species coexistence patterns across space. Mutualisms, particularly, are known to influence species' population dynamics and their invasive ability (e.g., mycorrhizal fungi with partner plants). Yet, while modeling coinvasion, their role in mediating coexistence is overlooked. Here, we build a spatially explicit model of coinvasion of two competing plant species with a shared fungal mutualist to study how mutualism and competition interact to shape the local and regional coexistence of competitors. We observe four main results. First, mutualist presence generates regional coexistence between competitors even when local coexistence between them is impossible. Second, increasing partner mutualist dispersal leads to abrupt changes in competitor coexistence outcomes. Third, differences in mutualist partner dependence and competitive ability interact to produce a variety of local and regional coexistence outcomes. Fourth, asymmetry in the dispersal ability arising from dependence-dispersal trade-offs leads to greater exclusion of species less dependent on mutualist partners for growth. In toto, incorporating mutualism-specific trait trade-offs and dispersal asymmetries into coinvasion models offers new insights into regional coexistence and invasive species distributions.

Indexed as

EcosystemModels, BiologicalMycorrhizaePlantsSymbiosisIntroduced SpeciesPopulation DynamicsSpecies Specificitycoexistencecoinvasioncompetitiondispersalintegro‐difference equationsmutualismmutualism dependencerange expansion

Identifiers

PMID39988962
PMCPMC11848128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.