Title:The storage effect is not about bet-hedging or population stage-structure

Abstract:The storage effect is a well-known explanation for the coexistence of competing species in temporally varying environments. Like many complex ecological theories, the storage effect is often used as an explanation for observed coexistence on the basis of heuristic understanding, rather than careful application of a detailed model. But, a careful examination of some widely employed heuristic representations of the storage effect shows that they can be misleading. One interpretation of the storage effect states that species coexist by specializing on a small slice of all environmental states, and therefore must have a robust life-stage (e.g., long-lived adults, a seedbank) in order to "wait it out" for a good year. Another more general interpretation states that "buffering" helps species "wait it out", where "buffering" means populations are protected from large losses when the environment is poor and competition is high. Here, we show that both of these conventional interpretations are imperfect. Multiple models show that stage-structure, long lifespans, and overlapping generations are not required for the storage effect. Further, a species that experiences buffering necessarily grows poorly when the environment is favorable and competition is high. We review the empirical literature and conclude that species are likely to find themselves in this good-environment/high-competition scenario, and therefore, that buffering tends to hurt individual species. The buffering interpretation of the storage effect can be thought of as conflating a community-level criterion for coexistence with a population-level criterion for persistence; it is like claiming that species can persist by limiting their own growth rates, since the Lotka-Volterra model tells us that intraspecific competition must be greater than interspecific competition.