INDIVIDUAL VARIATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STOCHASTICITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR MATRIX MODEL PREDICTIONS

By C. Pfister, Forrest R. Stevens. 2003

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2972c7fa89f56eff000309f3841ebf4f39e5dab8

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

1. Katriona Shea
2. P. Zuidema
3. Roel Brienen
4. N. Stephenson
5. Phillip J. van Mantgem

In Ecology

1. Katriona Shea
2. P. Zuidema
3. Roel Brienen
4. Eelke Jongejans
5. N. Stephenson
6. O. Skarpaas
7. Phillip J. van Mantgem
8. Francesca Gherardi

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Roel Brienen
2. P. Zuidema
3. Eelke Jongejans
4. O. Skarpaas
5. Katriona Shea
6. H. During
7. N. Stephenson
8. Phillip J. van Mantgem

Citations in the corpus

• Dispersal, demography and spatial population models for conservation and control management (2008, background): “Ignoring the individual variation within these artificial categories can also lead to quantitative, and even qualitative differences in predictions (Easterling et al., 2000; Pfister and Stevens, 2003; Shea et al., 2006).”
• The accuracy of matrix population model projections for coniferous trees in the Sierra Nevada, California (2005, background): “To compare our results directly against the findings of Pfister & Stevens (2003) we considered, simultaneously, the effects on growth of previous growth and size, using multiple regression ( G t +1 = C + α · DBH t + β · G t , corresponding to equation 1 in Pfister & Stevens 2002), for stems Pfist”
• Autocorrelated growth of tropical forest trees: Unraveling patterns and quantifying consequences (2006, background): “DeAngelis et al., 1993; Pfister and Stevens, 2003 ).”