Disentangling the spatial patterns in community composition of prokaryotic and eukaryotic lake plankton

146 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.

What drives study‐dependent differences in distance–decay relationships of microbial communities? (2021, result): “The scale dependence of various biogeographical relationships is well studied (Bissett et al., 2010; Hillebrand, 2004; Martiny et al., 2011; Soininen et al., 2011), albeit with contrasting results.”
Current measures for distance decay in similarity of species composition are influenced by study extent and grain size (2012, background): “Scale-dependent ecological and environmental processes were suggested as an explanation for the variation of distance– decay results with differences in grain and extent in empirical studies (Soininen et al., 2007, 2011; Girdler & Barrie, 2008; Maloney & Munguia, 2011; Martiny et al., 2011).”
Metacommunity organisation, spatial extent and dispersal in aquatic systems: patterns, processes and prospects (2015, unknown): “…into coarse dispersal ability groups (Thompson & Townsend, 2006; Astorga et al., 2012; Algarte et al., 2014), groups with different body sizes (e.g. Soininen et al., 2011), incidence-based dispersal groups (e.g. Landeiro et al., 2012) or dispersal mode groups (Schulz et al., 2012; Wetzel et al.,…”