Modelling the effect of size on the aerial dispersal of microorganisms

By David M. Wilkinson, S. Koumoutsaris, Edward Mitchell, I. Bey. 2012

250 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Comparative analysis of diversity and environmental niches of soil bacterial, archaeal, fungal and protist communities reveal niche divergences along environmental gradients in the Alps (2021, background): “, 2017), it should allow more efficient passive wind dispersal (Wilkinson et al., 2012).”
Environmental filtering affects soil fungal community composition more than dispersal limitation at regional scales (2014, background): “Indeed, current models of fungal dispersal treat propagules as dust particles (Womack et al., 2010; Wilkinson et al., 2012) and rarely consider life history or trait differences among fungal taxa.”
Direct long‐distance dispersal shapes a New World amphitropical disjunction in the dispersal‐limited dung moss Tetraplodon (Bryopsida: Splachnaceae) (2014, background): “In both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, wind serves as an important vector for long-distance dispersal (LDD; Mu~noz et al., 2004; Wilkinson et al., 2012).”
What drives study‐dependent differences in distance–decay relationships of microbial communities? (2021, background): “For example, small cells disperse more efficiently over long distances (Norros et al., 2014; Wilkinson, 2001; Wilkinson et al., 2012), meaning that organisms with larger cell sizes, such as microbial Eukarya, should be more strongly dispersal limited than those with small cell sizes, such as…”