Rethinking plant community theory

By Christopher J. Lortie, Rob W. Brooker, P. Choler, Z. Kikvidze, Richard Michalet, F. Pugnaire, R. Callaway. 2004

591 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/48a1207948eb39c1aaf92df6d286a80e1e15bb2f

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

Facilitation of Quercus ilex in Mediterranean shrubland is explained by both direct and indirect interactions mediated by herbs (2010, background): “Biotic interactions are major drivers of the structure and dynamics of plant communities (Lortie et al. 2004).”
A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. (2010, background): “Recently, ecologists have begun to propose specific hypotheses on how simultaneous positive and negative interactions influence plant community dynamics (Lortie et al. 2004; Brooker et al. 2008; Maestre et al. 2009).”
SESAM – a new framework integrating macroecological and species distribution models for predicting spatio‐temporal patterns of species assemblages (2011, background): “This essentially means incorporating the potential effect of biotic interactions in predicting the composition of species assemblages (Lortie et al., 2004; Gotelli et al., 2010).”
Allelopathy and plant invasions: traditional, congeneric, and bio-geographical approaches (2008, background): “The presence and abundance of a species in a community is determined by a suite of ‘‘filters’’ including highly stochastic processes such as dispersal, the specific tolerances of species to the suite of local abiotic conditions, positive and negative direct and indirect interactions among plants, an”
Predicting potential distributions of invasive species: where to go from here? (2010, background): “…on the assumption that large-scale environmental gradients (commonly climate) determine which species could persist in a given environment (i.e. habitat filtering, Diamond, 1975), while population dynamic processes take place at smaller spatial scales (Weither & Keddy, 1995; Lortie et al., 2004).”
Biotic indirect effects: a neglected concept in invasion biology (2006, background): “…in structuring communities as speculated by some authors (Holt, 1977; Wilson, 1986; Holt & Kotler, 1987; Miller, 1994; Bonsall & Hassell, 1997; Lortie et al., 2004), they are likely to play a vital (though as yet little known) role in influencing invasion success as well as determining the…”
Towards a predictive framework for biocrust mediation of plant performance: A meta‐analysis (2019, background): “Biotic interactions can strongly influence plant community assembly outcomes (Boulangeat et al., 2012; HilleRisLambers et al., 2012; Levine et al., 2004; Lortie et al., 2004).”
Co‐occurrence patterns of trees along macro‐climatic gradients and their potential influence on the present and future distribution of Fagus sylvatica L. (2011, background): “For instance, biotic interactions are recognized as important local filters of species distributions (Lortie et al., 2004; Meier et al., 2010).”
Detecting local adaptation in widespread grassland species – the importance of scale and local plant community (2006, background): “Local adaptation may be underestimated in such situations because surrounding vegetation might be an important agent of selection (Turkington & Harper 1979; Prati & Schmid 2000; Ehlers & Thompson 2004; Lortie et al. 2004 ) but it may also be overestimated due to factors reducing home site advantage”
The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling (2012, background): “…environment that depend on complex relationships to their ecological attributes, such as abiotic tolerances, dispersal capacity, history, and biotic interactions, that each vary in time and space (e.g. Lortie et al., 2004; Guisan & Thuiller, 2005; Ferrier & Guisan, 2006; Algar et al., 2009) (Fig.”
Root exudate is allelopathic in invaded community but not in native community: field evidence for the novel weapons hypothesis (2009, background): “If these effects are due to different responses by naive versus experienced plants communities, this suggests that plant communities may develop integrated relationships (Goodnight 1990; Wilson 1997; Vivanco et al. 2004; Lortie et al. 2004 ) through a common evolutionary history.”