Community (ecology): Difference between revisions

[[File:Bear predation on salmon can be high in many Alaskan rivers.jpg|right|thumb| 300px| A bear with a salmon in their mouth, having caught the fish from a river. Interspecific interactions such as [[predation]] are a key aspect of community ecology.]]

In ecology, a '''community''' is a group or [[association (ecology)|association]] of [[Population ecology|population]]s of two or more different [[species]] occupying the same geographical area at the same time, also known as a [[biocoenosis]]., The'''biotic termcommunity''', monostable'''biological relaycommunity''', currently'''ecological transistorcommunity''', or '''life assemblage'''. The term community has a variety of uses. In its simplest form it refers to groups of organisms in a specific place or time, for example, "the fish community of Lake Ontario before industrialization".

'''Community ecology''' or '''synecology''' is the study of the interactions between species in communities on many spatial and temporal scales, including the distribution, structure, abundance, [[demography]], and [[biological interaction|interaction]]s betweenof coexisting populations.<ref name="Sahney Benton 2008">{{cite journal |author1=Sahney, S. |author2=Benton, M. J. |year=2008 |title=Recovery from the most profound mass extinction of all time |journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences]] |doi=10.1098/rspb.2007.1370 |volume=275 |pages=759–65 |pmid=18198148 |issue=1636 |pmc=2596898 }}</ref> The primary focus of community ecology is on the interactions between populations as determined by specific [[genotypic]] and [[phenotypic]] characteristics. It is important to understand the origin, maintenance, and consequences of species diversity when evaluating community ecology.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Morin |first=Peter J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=etb9o0ROkggC&dq=community+ecology&pg=PR5 |title=Community Ecology |date=2009-04-13 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-4443-1231-7 |language=en}}</ref>

Community ecology also takes into account [[Abiotic components| abiotic factors]] that influence species distributions or interactions (e.g. annual temperature or [[Soil pH| soil pH]]. These non-living factors can influence the way species interact with each other).<ref name="Dunson">{{cite journal |last1=Dunson |first1=William A. |last2=Travis |first2=Joseph |title=The Role of Abiotic Factors in Community Organization |journal=The American Naturalist |date=November 1991 |volume=138 |issue=5 |pages=1067–1091 |doi=10.1086/285270|s2cid=84867707 }}</ref> Abiotic factors filter the species that are present in the community, and therefore community structure. For example, the differenceplant incommunities plantsinhabiting present[[desert]]s inare thevery desertdifferent comparedfrom tothose thefound in [[tropical rainforest]]s isdue dictatedto bydifferences thein annual precipitation. These non-living factors also influence the way species interact with each other.<ref name="Dunson" /> Humans can also have an effect onaffect community structure through habitat [[disturbance (ecology)|disturbance]], such as the introduction of [[ Invasive species| invasive species]].

Within the community, each species occupies a [[Ecological niche|niche]]. A species' niche determines how it interacts with the environment around it and its role within the community. By having different niches species are able to coexist.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Albrecht |first1=M. |last2=Gotelli |first2=N.J. |title=Spatial and temporal niche partitioning in grassland ants |journal=Oecologia |date=2001 |volume=126 |issue=1 |pages=134–141 |doi=10.1007/s004420000494|pmid=28547432 |bibcode=2001Oecol.126..134A |s2cid=5236696 }}</ref> This is known as niche partitioning. For example, the time of day a species hunts or the prey it hunts.

Niche partitioning the reduces competition between species.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cloyed |first1=Carl S. |last2=Eason |first2=Perri K. |title=Niche partitioning and the role of intraspecific niche variation in structuring a guild of generalist anurans |journal=Royal Society Open Science |date=2017 |volume=4 |issue=3 |pagespage=170060 |doi=10.1098/rsos.170060|pmid=28405403 |pmc=5383860 |bibcode=2017RSOS....470060C }}</ref> Suchsuch that species are able to coexist asbecause they suppress their own growth more than they limit the growth of other species (i.e., Thethe competition within a species is greater than the competition between species., Infraspecificor intraspecific competition is greater than interspecific).

The number of niches present in a community determines the number of species present. If two species have the exact same niche (e.g., the same food demands) then one species will outcompeteoutcompetes the other. The more niches filled, the higher the [[Biodiversity|biodiversity]] of the community.

===Trophic Levellevel===

[[File:TrophicWeb.jpg|thumb | 400px upright=1.5|a) A trophic pyramid showing the different trophic levels in a community. b) A food web of the same community ]]

A species’species' [[Trophic level |trophic level]] is their position in the food chain or web. At the bottom of the food web are [[Autotroph| autotrophsautotroph]]s, also known as '''[[primary producer''']]. Producers provide their own energy through '''[[photosynthesis''']] or [[Chemosynthesis| chemosynthesis]], plants are primary producers. The next level is '''[[herbivores''']] (primary consumers), these species feed on vegetation for their energy source. Herbivores are consumed by '''[[omnivores''']] or '''[[carnivores''']]. These species are secondary and tertiary consumers. Additional levels to the trophic scale come when smaller omnivores or carnivores are eaten by larger ones. At the top of the food web is the [[Apex predator| apex predator]], this animal species is not consumed by any other in the community. Herbivores, omnivores and carnivores are all [[Heterotroph| heterotrophsheterotroph]]s. <ref>{{cite web |title=Trophic level - Definition, Examples, & Facts |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/trophic-level |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |language=en}}</ref>

A basic example of a food chain is; '''grass → rabbit → fox'''. Food chains become more complex when more species are present, often being food webs. Energy is passed up through trophic levels. Energy is lost at each level, due to [[Ecological efficiency | ecological inefficiencies]]. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kozlovsky |first1=Daniel G. |title=A Critical Evaluation of the Trophic Level Concept. I. Ecological Efficiencies |journal=Ecology |date=1968 |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=48–60 |doi=10.2307/1933560|jstor=1933560 |bibcode=1968Ecol...49...48K }}</ref>

The trophic level of an organism can change based on the other species present. For example, tuna can be an apex predator eating the smaller fish, such as mackerel. However, in a community where a shark species is present the shark becomes the apex predator, feeding on the tuna. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=CORTES |first1=E |title=Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of sharks |journal=ICES Journal of Marine Science |date=1999 |volume=56 |issue=5 |pages=707–717 |doi=10.1006/jmsc.1999.0489|bibcode=1999ICJMS..56..707C |doi-access=free }}</ref>

[[Decomposers]] play a role in the trophic pyramid. They provide energy source and nutrients to the plant species in the community. Decomposers such as fungi and bacteria recycle energy back to the base of the food web by feeding on dead organisms from all trophic levels. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Naeem |first1=Shahid |last2=Hahn |first2=Daniel R. |last3=Schuurman |first3=Gregor |title=Producer–decomposer co-dependency influences biodiversity effects |journal=Nature |date=2000 |volume=403 |issue=6771 |pages=762–764 |doi=10.1038/35001568|pmid=10693803 |bibcode=2000Natur.403..762N |s2cid=998380 }}</ref>

A [[Guild|guild (ecology)|guild]] is a group of species in the community that utiliseutilize the same resources in a similar way. Organisms in the same guild experience competition due to their shared resource.<ref>{{cite web |title=Guild ecology |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/guild-ecology |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |language=en}}</ref> Closely related species tend toare beoften in the same guild, due to traits inherited through [[Common descent | common descent]] from their [[ Most recent common ancestor |common ancestor]]. However, guilds are not exclusively composed of closely related species. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Korňan |first1=Martin |last2=Kropil |first2=Rudolf |title=What are ecological guilds? Dilemma of guild concepts |journal=Russian Journal of Ecology |date=2014 |volume=45 |issue=5 |pages=445–447 |doi=10.1134/S1067413614050178|bibcode=2014RuJEc..45..445K |s2cid=7727306 }}</ref>

Carnivores, Omnivoresomnivores and herbivores are all basic examples of guilds. A more precise guild would be vertebrates that forage for ground dwelling [[Arthropod |arthropodsarthropod]]s, this would contain certain birds and mammals.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Croonquist |first1=Mary Jo |last2=Brooks |first2=Robert P. |title=Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas |journal=Environmental Management |date=1991 |volume=15 |issue=5 |pages=701–714 |doi=10.1007/BF02589628|bibcode=1991EnMan..15..701C |s2cid=55353111 }}</ref> Flowering plants that have the same pollinator also form a guild.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pellmyr |first1=Olle |last2=Thompson |first2=John N. |title=Sources of variation in pollinator contribution within a guild: the effects of plant and pollinator factors |journal=Oecologia |date=1996 |volume=107 |issue=4 |pages=595–604 |doi=10.1007/BF00333953|pmid=28307405 |bibcode=1996Oecol.107..595P |s2cid=26210118 }}</ref>

Certain species have a greater influence on the community through their direct and indirect interactions with other species. The population of influential species are affected by abiotic and biotic disturbances. These species are important in identifying communities of ecology. The loss of these species results in large changes to the community, often reducing the stability of the community. Climate change and the introduction of invasive species can affect the functioning of key species and thus have knock -on effects toon the community processes. Industrialization and the introduction of chemical pollutants into environments have forever altered communities and even entire ecosystems.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rohr |first1=Jason R. |last2=Kerby |first2=Jacob L. |last3=Sih |first3=Andrew |date=November 2006 |title=Community ecology as a framework for predicting contaminant effects |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534706002114 |journal= Trends in Ecology & Evolution|volume=21 |issue=11 |pages=606–613 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2006.07.002 |pmid=16843566 |via=Cell Press}}</ref>

===Foundation species===

[[Foundation species]] largely influence the population, dynamics and processes of a community, by creating physical changes to the environment itself.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Species with a Large Impact on Community Structure {{!}} Learn Science at Scitable |url=https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/species-with-a-large-impact-on-community-13240710/ |access-date=2023-02-16 |website=www.nature.com |language=en}}</ref> These species can occupy any trophic level, but tend to be producers. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ellison |first1=Aaron M. |last2=Bank |first2=Michael S. |last3=Clinton |first3=Barton D. |last4=Colburn |first4=Elizabeth A. |last5=Elliott |first5=Katherine |last6=Ford |first6=Chelcy R. |last7=Foster |first7=David R. |last8=Kloeppel |first8=Brian D. |last9=Knoepp |first9=Jennifer D. |last10=Lovett |first10=Gary M. |last11=Mohan |first11=Jacqueline |last12=Orwig |first12=David A. |last13=Rodenhouse |first13=Nicholas L. |last14=Sobczak |first14=William V. |last15=Stinson |first15=Kristina A. |last16=Stone |first16=Jeffrey K. |last17=Swan |first17=Christopher M. |last18=Thompson |first18=Jill |last19=Von Holle |first19=Betsy |last20=Webster |first20=Jackson R. | display-authors=2 |title=Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems |journal=Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment |date=November 2005 |volume=3 |issue=9 |pages=479–486 |doi=10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0479:LOFSCF]2.0.CO;2|doi-access=free |hdl=11603/29165 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> [[Red mangrove]] is a foundation species in marine communities. The mangrove’smangrove's root provides nursery grounds for young fish, such as [[Northern red snapper| snappers]]. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Angelini |first1=Christine |last2=Altieri |first2=Andrew H. |last3=Silliman |first3=Brian R. |last4=Bertness |first4=Mark D. | display-authors=2|title=Interactions among Foundation Species and Their Consequences for Community Organization, Biodiversity, and Conservation |journal=BioScience |date=October 2011 |volume=61 |issue=10 |pages=782–789 |doi=10.1525/bio.2011.61.10.8|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Whitebark pine (''[[Pinus albicaulis]]'') is a foundation species. Post fire disturbance the tree provides shade (due to its dense growth) enabling the regrowth of other plant species in the community, This growth prompts the return of invertebrates and microbes which are needed for decomposition. Whitebark pine seeds provide food for grizzly bears. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ellison |first1=Aaron M. |last2=Bank |first2=Michael S. |last3=Clinton |first3=Barton D. |last4=Colburn |first4=Elizabeth A. |last5=Elliott |first5=Katherine |last6=Ford |first6=Chelcy R. |last7=Foster |first7=David R. |last8=Kloeppel |first8=Brian D. |last9=Knoepp |first9=Jennifer D. |last10=Lovett |first10=Gary M. |last11=Mohan |first11=Jacqueline |last12=Orwig |first12=David A. |last13=Rodenhouse |first13=Nicholas L. |last14=Sobczak |first14=William V. |last15=Stinson |first15=Kristina A. |last16=Stone |first16=Jeffrey K. |last17=Swan |first17=Christopher M. |last18=Thompson |first18=Jill |last19=Von Holle |first19=Betsy |last20=Webster |first20=Jackson R. |display-authors=2|title=Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems |journal=Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment |date=2005 |volume=3 |issue=9 |pages=479–486 |doi=10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0479:LOFSCF]2.0.CO;2|doi-access=free |hdl=11603/29165 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

[[Keystone species]] have a disproportionate influence on the community than most species. Keystone species tend to be at the higher trophic levels, often being the apex predator. Removal of the keystone species causes top-down [[Trophictrophic cascade| trophic cascades]]s. Wolves are keystone species, being an apex predator.

In [[Yellowstone National Park]] the loss of the wolf population through overhunting resulted in the [[loss of biodiversity]] in the community. The wolves had controlled the number of [[Elk |elkselk]]s in the park, through predation. Without the wolves the elk population drastically increased, resulting in overgrazing. This negatively affected the other organisms in the park; the increased grazing from the elks removed food sources from other animals present. Wolves have since been reintroduced to return the park community to optimal functioning. See [[Wolf reintroduction]] and [[History of wolves in Yellowstone]] for more details on this case study.

A marine example of a keystone species is ''[[Pisaster ochraceus]]''. This starfish controls the abundance of ''[[Mytilus californianus]]'', allowing enough resources for the other species in the community. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Menge |first1=Bruce A. |last2=Berlow |first2=Eric L. |last3=Blanchette |first3=Carol A. |last4=Navarrete |first4=Sergio A. |last5=Yamada |first5=Sylvia B. |display-authors = 2|title=The Keystone Species Concept: Variation in Interaction Strength in a Rocky Intertidal Habitat |journal=Ecological Monographs |date=1994 |volume=64 |issue=3 |pages=249–286 |doi=10.2307/2937163|jstor=2937163 |bibcode=1994EcoM...64..249M }}</ref>

An [[Ecosystem engineer | ecosystem engineer]] is a species that maintains, modifies and creates aspects of a community. They cause physical changes to the habitat and alter the resources available to the other organisms present. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jones |first1=Clive G. |last2=Lawton |first2=John H. |last3=Shachak |first3=Moshe |title=Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers |journal=Oikos |date=1994 |volume=69 |issue=3 |pagespage=373 |doi=10.2307/3545850|jstor=3545850 |bibcode=1994Oikos..69..373J }}</ref>

Dam building beavers are ecological engineers. Through the cutting of trees to form dams they alter the flow of water in a community. These changes influence the vegetation on the [[Riparian zone| riparian zone]], studies show biodiversity is increased. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wright |first1=Justin P. |last2=Jones |first2=Clive G. |last3=Flecker |first3=Alexander S. |title=An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale |journal=Oecologia |date=2002 |volume=132 |issue=1 |pages=96–101 |doi=10.1007/s00442-002-0929-1|pmid=28547281 |bibcode=2002Oecol.132...96W |s2cid=5940275 }}</ref> Burrowing by the beavers creates channels, increasing the connections between habitats. This aids the movement of other organisms in the community such as frogs. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hood |first1=Glynnis A. |last2=Larson |first2=David G. |title=Ecological engineering and aquatic connectivity: a new perspective from beaver-modified wetlands |journal=Freshwater Biology |date=2015 |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=198–208 |doi=10.1111/fwb.12487|bibcode=2015FrBio..60..198H }}</ref>

Community structure is the composition of the community. It canis beoften measured through [[Speciesbiological richness| species richnessnetwork]]s, [[such Species evenness| species evenness]]. These measures help to understand theas [[Biodiversity|food biodiversityweb]] of the communitys. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Adey |first1=Walter H. |last2=Loveland |first2=Karen |title=Community Structure: Biodiversity in Model Ecosystems |journal=Dynamic Aquaria (Third Edition) |date=2007 |pages=173–189 |doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-370641-6.50021-2 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=9780123706416978-0-12-370641-6 |language=en}}</ref> Food webs are a map showing species networks and the energy that links the species together through trophic interactions.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Thompson |first1=Ross M. |last2=Brose |first2=Ulrich |last3=Dunne |first3=Jennifer A. |last4=Hall Jr. |first4=Robert O. |last5=Hladyz |first5=Sally |last6=Kitching |first6=Roger L. |last7=Martinez |first7=Neo D. |last8=Rantala |first8=Heidi |last9=Romanuk |first9=Tamara N. |last10=Stouffer |first10=Daniel B. |last11=Tylianakis |first11=Jason M. |date=December 2012 |title=Food webs: reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity |url=https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(12)00200-5#articleInformation |journal= Trends in Ecology & Evolution|volume=27 |issue=12 |pages=689–697 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.005 |pmid=22959162 |via=Cell Press|hdl=10261/67305 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

Holistic theory refers to the idea that a community is defined by the interactions between the organisms in it. All species are interdependent, each playing a vital role in the working of the community. Due to this communities are repeatable and easy to identify, with similar abiotic factors controlling throughout.

[[Frederic Clements|Clements]] developed the [[Holistic community|holistic (or organismic)]] concept of community, as if it waswere a [[superorganism]] or discrete unit, with sharp boundaries. <ref name="Hanspach et al 2014">{{cite journal |last1=Hanspach |first1=Jan |last2=Hartel |first2=Tibor |last3=Milcu |first3=Andra I. |last4=Mikulcak |first4=Friederike |last5=Dorresteijn |first5=Ine |last6=Loos |first6=Jacqueline |last7=von Wehrden |first7=Henrik |last8=Kuemmerle |first8=Tobias |last9=Abson |first9=David |last10=Kovács-Hostyánszki |first10=Anikó |last11=Báldi |first11=András |last12=Fischer |first12=Joern |display-authors=2|title=A holistic approach to studying social-ecological systems and its application to southern Transylvania |journal=Ecology and Society |date=2014 |volume=19 |issue=4 |doi=10.5751/ES-06915-190432|doi-access=free }}</ref> Clements proposed this theory after noticing that certain plant species were regularly found together in habitats, he concluded that the species were dependent on each other. Formation of communities is non-random and involves [[Coevolution| coevolution]]. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shipley |first1=Bill |last2=Keddy |first2=Paul A. |title=The individualistic and community-unit concepts as falsifiable hypotheses |journal=Vegetatio |date=April 1987 |volume=69 |issue=1–3 |pages=47–55 |doi=10.1007/BF00038686|s2cid=25395638 }}</ref>

The Holistic theory stems from the greater thinking of [[Holism]]; which—which refers to a system's with many parts, all of which are required for the functioningsystem ofto the systemfunction.

[[Henry A. Gleason (botanist)|Henry Gleason]] developed the individualistic (also known as open or continuum) concept of community, with the abundance of a population of a species changing gradually along complex environmental gradients.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|doi=10.1093/obo/9780199830060-0042|title=Community Ecology|date=23 May 2012|last1=Verhoef|first1=Herman A.|encyclopedia=Oxford Bibliographies|isbn=978-0-19-983006-0}}</ref> Each species changes independently in relation to other species present along the gradient.<ref>{{cite web|title=What is vegetation classification?|url=https://sites.google.com/site/vegclassmethods/concepts|publisher=International Association for Vegetation Science (IAVS)|accessdateaccess-date=8 March 2015}}</ref> Association of species is random and due to coincidence. Varying environmental conditions and each species' probability of arriving and becoming established along the gradient influence the community composition.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McIntosh |first1=Robert P. |title=H. A. Gleason's 'Individualistic Concept' and Theory of Animal Communities: A Continuing Controversy |journal=Biological Reviews |date=1995 |volume=70 |issue=2 |pages=317–357 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-185X.1995.tb01069.x|pmid=7605849 |s2cid=6328280 }}</ref>

[[Stephen P. Hubbell|Hubbell]] introduced the [[Unified neutral theory of biodiversity|neutral theory]] of ecology (not to be confused with the [[neutral theory of molecular evolution]]). Within the community (or [[metacommunity]]), species are functionally equivalent, and the abundance of a population of a species changes by [[stochastic]] [[demographic]] processes (i.e., random births and deaths).<ref name="hubbell2001">{{cite book|last1=Hubbell|first1=Stephen P.|title=The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography|date=2001|publisher=Princeton Univ. Press|location=Princeton [u.a.]|isbn=978-06910212870-691-02128-7|edition=Print on Demand.}}</ref>

When an individual dies, there is an equal chance of each species colonising that plot. Stochastic changes can cause species within the community to go extinct, however, this can take a long time if there are many individuals of that species.

Species can coexist because they are similar, resources and conditions apply a filter to the type of species that are present in the community. Each population has the same [[adaptive value]] (competitive and dispersal abilities) and resources demand. Local and regional composition represent a balance between [[Speciation|speciation]] or [[Biological dispersal|dispersal]] (which increase diversity), and random extinctions (which decrease diversity).<ref name="Vellend2010">{{cite journal|last1=Vellend|first1=Mark|title=Conceptual synthesis in community ecology.|journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology|date=June 2010|volume=85|issue=2|pages=183–206|pmid=20565040|doi=10.1086/652373|s2cid=10026873}}</ref>

Species can [[Competition (biology)|compete]] with each other for finite [[Resource (biology)|resources]]. It is considered to be an important limiting factor of [[population size]], [[Biomass (ecology)|biomass]] and [[species richness]]. Many types of competition have been described, but proving the existence of these interactions is a matter of debate. Direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations and species, but there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups.<ref name="Sahney Benton Ferry 2010">{{cite journal | author=Sahney, S., |author2=Benton, M.J. and |author3=Ferry, P.A. | year=2010 | title=Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land | journal=Biology Letters | doi=10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024 | volume = 6 | pages = 544–547 | issue=4 | pmid=20106856 | pmc=2936204}}</ref>

# '''Apparent competition''': occurs when two species share a predator. For example, a cougar preys on woodland caribou and deer. The populations of both species can be depressed by predation without direct exploitative competition.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Holt R.D. | year = 1977 | title = Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities | url = | journal = Theoretical Population Biology | volume = 12 | issue = 2| pages = 197–229 | pmid = 929457 | doi=10.1016/0040-5809(77)90042-9}}</ref>
[[File:Prey symmetric.png|350px|thumb|rightupright=1.2|Table visualising size-symmetric competition, using fish as consumers and crabs as resources. ]]

# '''Exploitative competition''': This occurs via the consumption of resources. When an individual of one species consumes a resource (e.g., food, shelter, sunlight, etc.), that resource is no longer available to befor consumedconsumption by a member of a second species. Exploitative competition is thought to be more common in nature, but care must be taken to distinguish it from the apparent competition. An example of exploitative competition could be between herbivores consuming vegetation; rabbit and deer both eating meadow grass. Exploitative competition varies:

::*absolute size-asymmetric - the largest individuals exploit all the available resource. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=del Río |first1=Miren |last2=Condés |first2=Sonia |last3=Pretzsch |first3=Hans |title=Analyzing size-symmetric vs. size-asymmetric and intra- vs. inter-specific competition in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) mixed stands |journal=Forest Ecology and Management |date=2014 |volume=325 |pages=90–98 |doi=10.1016/j.foreco.2014.03.047|url=http://oa.upm.es/36136/ }}</ref>

[[Predation]] is hunting another species for food. This is a positive–negativepositive-negative interaction, the predator species benefits while the prey species is harmed. Some predators kill their prey before eating them, also known as kill and consume. For example, a hawk catching and killing a mouse.

Other predators are parasites that feed on prey while alive, for example, a vampire bat feeding on a cow. Parasitism can however lead to death of the host organism over time.

Predation can be specialist, for example the least weasel predates solely on the field vole. Or generalist, e.g. polar bear primarily eats seals but can switch diet to birds when seal population is low. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Graham |first1=Isla M. |last2=Lambin |first2=Xavier |title=The impact of weasel predation on cyclic field-vole survival: the specialist predator hypothesis contradicted |journal=Journal of Animal Ecology |date=2002 |volume=71 |issue=6 |pages=946–956 |doi=10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00657.x|doi-access=free |bibcode=2002JAnEc..71..946G }}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Russell |first1=Richard H. |title=The Food Habits of Polar Bears of James Bay and Southwest Hudson Bay in Summer and Autumn |journal=ARCTICArctic |date=1975 |volume=28 |issue=2 |doi=10.14430/arctic2823|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Species can be solitary or group predators. AdvantageThe advantage of hunting in a group means bigger prey can be taken, however, the food source has tomust be shared. Wolves are group predators, whilst tigers are solitary.

[[File:Predator prey curve.png|thumb|right|A generalised graph of a predator-prey population density cycle| 350px]]

Predation is '''density dependant''', often leading to population cycles. When prey is abundant predator species increases, thus eating more prey species and causing the prey population to decline. Due to lack of food the predator population declines. Due to lack of predation the prey population increases. See [[Lotka–Volterra equations]] for more details on this. A well-known example of this is [[Canada lynx| lynx]]-[[Snowshoe hare| hare]] population cycles seen in the north.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Keith |first1=Lloyd B. |title=Role of Food in Hare Population Cycles |journal=Oikos |date=1983 |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=385–395 |doi=10.2307/3544311|jstor=3544311 |bibcode=1983Oikos..40..385K }}</ref>

Predation can result in '''coevolution''' – [[Evolutionary arms race| evolutionary arms race]], prey adapts to avoid predator, predator evolves. For example, a prey species develops a toxin that will killkills its predator, and the predator evolves resistance to the toxin making it no longer lethal.

{{Main|Mutualism (biology)}}
[[Mutualism (biology)|Mutualism]] is an interaction between species in which both species benefit.

An example is ''[[Rhizobium]]'' bacteria growing in nodules on the roots of legumes. This relationship between plant and bacteria is [[Endosymbiont| endosymbiotic]], the bacteria living on the roots of the legume. The plant provides compounds made during photosynthesis to the bacteria, that can be used as an energy source. Whilst Rhizobium is a [[Nitrogen fixation |nitrogen fixing]] bacteria, providing amino acids or ammonium to the plant. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Maróti |first1=Gergely |last2=Kondorosi |first2=Éva |title=Nitrogen-fixing Rhizobium-legume symbiosis: are polyploidy and host peptide-governed symbiont differentiation general principles of endosymbiosis? |journal=Frontiers in Microbiology |date=2014 |volume=5 |pagespage=326 |doi=10.3389/fmicb.2014.00326|pmid=25071739 |pmc=4074912 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Insects pollinating the flowers of [[angiosperm]]s, is another example. Many plants are dependent on [[Pollination|pollination]] from a pollinator. A pollinator transfers pollen from the male flower to the female's [[Stigma (botany)|stigma]]. This fertilises the flower and enables the plant to reproduce. Bees, such as [[Honey bee| honeybees]], are the most commonly known pollinators. Bees get nectar from the plant that they use as an energy source. Un-transferred pollen provides protein for the bee. The plant benefits through fertilisation, whilst the bee is provided with food. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hung |first1=Keng-Lou James |last2=Kingston |first2=Jennifer M. |last3=Albrecht |first3=Matthias |last4=Holway |first4=David A. |last5=Kohn |first5=Joshua R.|display-authors=2 |title=The worldwide importance of honey bees as pollinators in natural habitats |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |date=2018 |volume=285 |issue=1870 |pagespage=20172140 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2017.2140|pmid=29321298 |pmc=5784195 }}</ref>

For example, an [[epiphyte|epiphytic]] orchid attached to the tree for support benefits the orchid but neither harms nor benefits the tree. This type of commensalism is called '''[[Inquilinism | inquilinism]]''', the orchid permanently lives on the tree.

'''[[Phoresy]]''' is another type of commensalism, the commensal uses the host solely for transport. Many [[Mite| mite]] species rely on another organism, such as birds or mammals, for dispersal. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Houck |first1=M A |last2=OConnor |first2=B M |title=Ecological and Evolutionary Significance of Phoresy in the Astigmata |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |date=January 1991 |volume=36 |issue=1 |pages=611–636 |doi=10.1146/annurev.en.36.010191.003143}}</ref>

'''Metabiosis''' is the final form of commensalism. The commensal relies on the host to prepare an environment suitable for life. For example, Kelp has a root like system, called a [[Holdfastholdfast (biology)|holdfast]], that attaches it to the seabed. Once rooted it provides [[Mollusca|molluscs]], such as sea snails, with a home that protects them from predation. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Marti J. |authorlink1author-link1=Marti Anderson (statistician) |last2=Diebel |first2=Carol E. |last3=Blom |first3=Wilma M. |last4=Landers |first4=Todd J. |display-authors=2 |title=Consistency and variation in kelp holdfast assemblages: Spatial patterns of biodiversity for the major phyla at different taxonomic resolutions |journal=Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology |date=2005 |volume=320 |pages=35–56 |doi=10.1016/j.jembe.2004.12.023}}</ref>

An example is thean interaction beenbetween tadpoles of the [[Common frog|common frog]] and a [[Freshwater snail| freshwater snail]]. The tadpoles consume large amounts of micro-algae. Making algae less abundant for the snail, the algae available for the snail is also of lower quality. The tadpole, therefore, has a negative effect on the snail without a gaining noticeable advantage from the snail. The tadpoles would obtain the same amount of food with or without the presence of the snail. <ref>{{cite journalbook |last1=Dodds |first1=Walter K. |last2=Whiles |first2=Matt R. |titlechapter=Nonpredatory Interspecific Interactions Among Plants and Animals in Freshwater Communities |journaltitle=Freshwater Ecology |edition=3rd |date=2020 |pages=653–670 |doi=10.1016/b978-0-12-813255-5.00021-1 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=9780128132555978-0-12-813255-5 |s2cid=243070121 |language=en}}</ref>

An older, taller tree can inhibit the growth of smaller trees. A new sapling growing in the shade of a mature tree will strugglestruggles to get light for photosynthesis. The mature tree will also havehas a well-developed root system, enablinghelping it to outcompete the sapling for nutrients. Growth of the sapling is therefore impeded, often resulting in death. The relationship between the two trees is amensalism, the mature tree is unaffected by the presence of the smaller one.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Meier Eliane S. |first1=Eliane S |last2=Kienast |first2=Felix |last3=Pearman |first3=Peter B |last4=Svenning |first4=Jens‐ChristianJens-Christian |last5=Thuiller |first5=Wilfried |last6=Araújo |first6=Miguel B. |last7=Antoine |first7=Guisan |last8=Zimmermann |first8=Niklaus E. |title=Biotic and abiotic variables show little redundancy in explaining tree species distributions |journal=Ecography |date=2010 |volume=33 |issue=6 |pagepages=1038-10481038–1048 |urldoi=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06229.x |accessdatebibcode=21 April2010Ecogr..33.1038M 2020}}</ref>

Parasitism is a '''[[symbiosis''']], a long-term bond in which the parasite feeds on the host or takes resources from the host. Parasites can live within the body such as a [[Cestoda| tapeworm]]. Or on the body's surface, for example [[Head louse| head-lice]].

[[File:Piet-my-vrou & cape robin.jpg|thumb|Piet-my-vrou & cape robin| Right right|A red-chested cuckoo chick being feed by a significantly smaller Cape robin-chat adult |300px ]]

[[Malaria]] is a result of a parasitic relationship between a female [[Anopheles mosquito]] and ‘’''[[Plasmodium]]’’''.

Mosquitos get the parasite by feeding on an infected vertebrate. Inside the mosquito the plasmodium develops in the midgut's wall. Once developed to a [[Zygote| zygote]] the parasite moves to the salivary glands where it can be passed on to a vertebrate species, for example humans. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Beier |first1=John C. |title=Malaria Parasite Development in Mosquitoes |journal=Annual Review of Entomology |date=1998 |volume=43 |pages=519–543 |doi=10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.519|pmid=9444756 }}</ref> The mosquito acts as a [[Vector (epidemiology)| vector]] for Malaria. The parasite tends to reduce the mosquito's lifespan and inhibits the production of offspring. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=HOGG |first1=JON C. |last2=HURD |first2=HILARY |title=Malaria-induced reduction of fecundity during the first gonotrophic cycle of Anopheles Stephensi mosquitoes |journal=Medical and Veterinary Entomology |date=1995 |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=176–180 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2915.1995.tb00175.x|pmid=7787226 |s2cid=30277109 }}</ref>

A second example of parasitism is [[Brood parasite| brood parasitism]].

[[Cuckoos]] regularly do this type of parasitism. Cuckoos lay their eggs in the nest of another species of birds. The host, therefore, provides for the cuckoo chick as if it waswere as their own, unable to tell the difference. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davies |first1=N.B. |last2=Bourke |first2=Andrew F.G. |last3=de L. Brooke |first3=M. |title=Cuckoos and parasitic ants: Interspecific brood parasitism as an evolutionary arms race |journal=Trends in Ecology & Evolution |date=1989 |volume=4 |issue=9 |pages=274–278 |doi=10.1016/0169-5347(89)90202-4|pmid=21227369 }}</ref> The cuckoo chicks eject the host's young from the nest meaning they get a greater level of care and resources from the parents. Rearing for young is costly and can reduce the success of future offspring, thus the cuckoo attempts to avoid this cost through brood parasitism. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Petrie |first1=M. |last2=Møller |first2=A.P. |title=Laying eggs in others' nests: Intraspecific brood parasitism in birds |journal=Trends in Ecology & Evolution |date=1991 |volume=6 |issue=10 |pages=315–320 |doi=10.1016/0169-5347(91)90038-Y|pmid=21232496 }}</ref>

In a similar way to predation, parasitism can lead to an '''[[evolutionary arms race''']]. The host evolves to protect themselves from the parasite and the parasite evolves to overcome this restriction. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sheath |first1=Danny J. |last2=Dick |first2=Jaimie T. A. |last3=Dickey |first3=James W. E. |last4=Guo |first4=Zhiqiang |last5=Andreou |first5=Demetra |last6=Britton |first6=J. Robert | display-authors=2 | title=Winning the arms race: host–parasite shared evolutionary history reduces infection risks in fish final hosts |journal=Biology Letters |date=2018 |volume=14 |issue=7 |pagespage=20180363 |doi=10.1098/rsbl.2018.0363|pmid=30045905 |pmc=6083226 }}</ref>

Neutralism is where species interact, but the interaction has no noticeable effects on either species involved. Due to the interconnectedness of communities, true neutralism is rare. Examples of neutralism in ecological systems are hard to prove, due to the indirect effects that species can have on each other.

* [[{{Annotated link|Biocoenosis]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Co-evolution]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Community structure]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Convergent evolution]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Coexistence theory]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Deep sea community]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Ecological effects of biodiversity]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Evolutionary radiation]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Limiting similarity]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Metacommunity]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Population ecology]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Phage ecology#Phage community ecology|Phage community ecology]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Phylogeography]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Phytocoenosis]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Plant community]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Scientific classification]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|size-asymmetric competition]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|R* rule]]}}

* [[{{Annotated link|Universal adaptive strategy theory|CSR theory]]}}

{{refenddiv col end}}

* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/index.php/Community Community, BioMineWiki] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210627210416/http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/index.php/Community |date=27 June 2021 }}

* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/index.php/Identification/Characterization Identify microbial species in a community, BioMineWiki] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210630055503/http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/index.php/Identification/Characterization |date=30 June 2021 }}