ABIOTIC FACTORS AND THE CONDITIONAL OUTCOME OF AN ANT–PLANT MUTUALISM

By Mônica Frank Kersch, C. Fonseca. 2005

125 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/28ae706f07c8bc66fe83c27ddee5d7c50e537fbb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. T. Miller
2. J. Bronstein

In Genetics

1. T. Miller
2. J. Bronstein

In Plant Science

1. T. Miller
2. J. Bronstein

Citations in the corpus

• The evolution of facilitation and mutualism (2009, background): “Rather, mutualisms grade into either commensal (+0) or antagonistic (+)) outcomes, as a function of nutrient availability (Jones & Smith 2004), abiotic conditions (Kersch & Fonseca 2005), the presence of other species (Bronstein &Barbosa 2002) and partner abundance (Theimer 2005).”
• Does having multiple partners weaken the benefits of facultative mutualism? A test with cacti and cactus‐tending ants (2007, result): “The discrepancy between my results and theirs illustrates the widely held view that the outcomes of ant plant interactions are highly conditional and subject to multiple sources of variation, including species effects (Bronstein 1998) and abiotic context (Kersch and Fonseca 2005).”