The return of the variance: intraspecific variability in community ecology.

By C. Violle, Brian J. Enquist, Brian J. McGill, Lin Jiang, Cécile H. Albert, C. Hulshof, V. Jung, J. Messier. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2012

1,653 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c6be3084e082fce79f29adcd82a42d23e8baa5b

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Linking small-scale topography with microclimate, plant species diversity and intra-specific trait variation in an alpine landscape (2015, background): “Recently, however, attention has started to shift towards quantifying patterns of intra-specific trait variation, which have been shown to account for a large portion of community-wide trait diversity patterns (Albert et al. 2010, 2012; Jung et al. 2010, 2014; de Bello et al. 2011; Violle et al. 201”
Analysing eco‐evolutionary dynamics—The challenging complexity of the real world (2019, background): “The pivotal role of phenotypes in this feedback is in line with the recent upsurge in interest in trait-based ecology (Bolnick et al., 2011) and the relative importance of intra- and interspecific trait variation (Violle et al., 2012).”
Spatial patterns and climate relationships of major plant traits in the New World differ between woody and herbaceous species (2018, background): “, 2014), intra-specific trait variation may be more important to incorporate when exploring species assembly processes at smaller scales than at larger scales that cover multiple and strongly heterogeneous biomes (Albert, Grassein, Schurr, Vieilledent, & Violle, 2011; Siefert et al., 2015; Violle et”
Grazing‐induced shifts in community functional composition and soil nutrient availability in Tibetan alpine meadows (2016, background): “Conversely, a functional response driven by species turnover suggests community function will more likely be disrupted by disturbance (Albert et al. 2011; Bolnick et al. 2011; Violle et al. 2012).”
Which trait dissimilarity for functional diversity: trait means or trait overlap? (2013, background): “However, it is increasingly recognized that species present a considerable amount of intraspecific trait variability, both within and across communities (de Bello et al. 2010b; Hulshof & Swenson 2010; Violle et al. 2012).”
Response diversity determines the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change (2013, background): “…of sub-functional groups (and that within-species variability of traits over time and space is important for further understanding of community processes; e.g. Laughlin et al., 2012; Violle et al., 2012), but for simplicity we generally discuss functional traits measured as species-level averages.”
Functional diversity metrics using kernel density n-dimensional hypervolumes (2020, neutral): “…perspective, including population and community ecology (Petchey & Gaston, 2002; McGill, Enquist, Weiher, & Westoby, 2006; Bolnick et al., 2011; Violle et al., 2012), conservation biology (Wellnitz & Poff, 2001; Cadotte, Carscadden, & Mirotchnick, 2011), and biogeography (Violle, Reich,…”
Niche Breadth: Causes and Consequences for Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation (2020, background): “Moreover, NB is explicitly a measure of variation, and a focus onNB is inmany ways analogous to the resurgence of interest in the importance of intraspecific variation in community ecology (e.g., Bolnick et al. 2011; Cadotte et al. 2011; Violle et al. 2012).”
Taking the sensory approach: how individual differences in sensory perception can influence mate choice (2012, positive): “Many scientists are beginning to recognize the relevant role of individual variation (Dangles et al. 2009; Biro & Stamps 2010; Violle et al. 2012), including those studying mate choice.”
Multiple facets of diversity effects on plant productivity: Species richness, functional diversity, species identity and intraspecific competition (2019, background): “On the one hand, differences in functional traits (functional 93 dissimilarity) can reflect differences in the use of resources that allow species to partition the 94 local pool of resources and avoid interspecific competition (Violle et al., 2012).”