Guilds or functional groups: does it matter?

By J. Blondel. 2003

426 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b8e6424f996e70ab5ab7abfb583c425d5a662e5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Plant guilds drive biomass response to global warming and water availability in subalpine grassland (2006, background): “Groups of plants found to respond similarly to changes in resources have been classified into guilds ( sensu Root 1967; for a recent discussion applied to plant groups see Blondel 2003 ).”
Global effects of land use on biodiversity differ among functional groups (2020, background): “Organisms 38 within functional groups interact with each other and with their environment in a similar 39 fashion (Blondel, 2003), and thus it is likely that responses to environmental changes will be 40 relatively similar within but different between functional groups.”
Using functional groups to investigate community response to environmental changes: two grassland case studies (2007, background): “FGs are nonphylogenetic, aggregated units of species sharing an important ecological characteristic and playing an equivalent role in the community (Cummins, 1974; Smith et al., 1997; Steneck, 2001; Blondel, 2003).”
Morphological patterns and community organization in leaf-litter ant assemblages (2010, background): “…into guilds reduces the number of components and thus variability, taking the analysis to manageable levels and facilitating quantification of structural attributes and organizing processes (Jaksic and Medel 1990, Simberloff and Dayan 1991, Wilson 1999, Blondel 2003, Farias and Jaksic 2006).”
MACRO-INVERTEBRATE FUNCTIONAL GROUPS IN FRESHWATER AND MARINE SEDIMENTS: A COMMON MECHANISTIC CLASSIFICATION (2003, neutral): “Recent works on the concept of functional groups in different aquatic and terrestrial environments pointed out the variety of views on functional grouping for different organisms and ecosystems such as vertebrates (Blondel 2002), and vegetation communities (Lavorel & Garnier 2002).”
How functional is functional? Ecological groupings in terrestrial animal ecology: towards an animal functional type approach (2011, methodology): “…and arthropods (MacMahon 1976; Brown et al. 1979; Jaksic 1981; Jaksic et al. 1993; Parker et al. 2001) because such studies are extremely time and cost intensive, require data collection and analysis at different spatial scales, and are coupled with methodological difficulties (Blondel 2003).”
Functional groups of lagoon fish species in Languedoc Roussillon, southern France (2004, background): “One way to overcome this problem is certainly a simplification of communities through a partitioning of species into a variety of guilds, functional groups or functional types (Simberloff & Dayan, 1991; Mathieson et al., 2000; Blondel, 2003; Jauffret & Lavorel, 2003).”
Functional richness: Overview of indices and underlying concepts (2018, methodology): “This approach consisted of grouping together all species sharing similar taxonomic, phylogenetic or morphological characteristics (Blondel 2003).”
Trait-Based Approaches in the Analysis of Stream Fish Communities (2010, background): “Because of the common resources involved, guild members may also share membership in a functional group, but that is not always the case (Blondel 2003).”
The role of eco-evolutionary experience in invasion success (2013, neutral): “Other ecological groupings (e.g. functional groups or types) can be used instead of guilds as well (for more details on ecological groupings, see e.g. Hawkins and MacMahon 1989, Wilson 1999, Blondel 2003, Blaum et al. 2011).”
Effects of plant diversity, plant productivity and habitat parameters on arthropod abundance in montane European grasslands (2005, background): “Arthropods were assigned to different functional groups (FGs) based on equivalent functional roles in communities (Blondel 2003).”
Effects of agricultural management on nematode–mite assemblages: Soil food web indices as predictors of mite community composition (2009, background): “These associations or assemblages of nematode and mite trophic groups can be considered as ‘‘guilds’’ in the sense of Blondel (2003), sharing resources and exploiting them similarly.”
A hierarchical classification of trophic guilds for North American birds and mammals (2014, background): “Recently, Blondel (2003) provided a comprehensive review of the differences between these 2 concepts.”