Interspecies interactions drive community-level selection in microbial coalescence
Song, J.; Hu, J.; Gore, J.
Show abstract
It has long been debated in ecology whether communities behave as cohesive units or as loose collections of independent species. Here, we study this question in the context of community coalescence, the mixing of previously isolated communities, using bacterial microcosm experiments combined with ecological modeling. Our results demonstrate that interspecies interaction strength determines whether communities or species are the units of selection during coalescence. When interactions are moderate to strong, one parental community consistently outcompetes the other, indicating community-level selection. In contrast, under weak interactions, species fates are uncorrelated and the two communities contribute equally to the coalesced outcome, indicating the absence of community-level selection. These patterns extend to communities derived from natural samples with greater taxonomic diversity and richness. Furthermore, we identify two distinct regimes underlying community-level selection in experiments with different media conditions: an emergent regime in which collective dynamics shape outcomes that cannot be predicted from species traits alone, and a top-down regime where dominant species determine the winning community. Together, these results reconcile conflicting observations on community-level selection during community coalescence by demonstrating that communities behave as cohesive units only when interactions are sufficiently strong.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Cell cycle dysregulation of globally important SAR11 bacteria resulting from environmental perturbation 96%
- A High Fraction of Oral Bacteria in the Feces Indicates Gut Microbiota Depletion with Implications for Human Health 96%
- Cytoplasmic contractile injection systems mediate cell death in Streptomyces 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.