Predicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life‐history traits

By R. Freckleton, A. Watkinson. 2001

100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/650abf4b2fe5f35d0b972bae15a004b99830c6c0

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. David A. Coomes
2. A. Weigelt
3. Brian J. Enquist
4. R. Freckleton
5. B. Schamp
6. C. Martorell
7. C. Violle
8. P. Grubb

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. David A. Coomes
2. Charles D. Canham
3. C. Violle
4. A. Weigelt
5. Brian J. Enquist
6. H. Dalgleish
7. María Uriarte
8. Van M. Savage

In Plant Science

1. David A. Coomes
2. P. Grubb
3. C. Martorell
4. P. Adler
5. R. Freckleton
6. Stephen P. Ellner
7. H. Dalgleish
8. Colleen Webb

Citations in the corpus

• Contingent Conclusions: Year of Initiation Influences Ecological Field Experiments, but Temporal Replication is Rare (2010, background): “For example, there is considerable evidence that early germination and an early size advantage can increase plant intraspecific and interspecific competitive ability (Dyer et al. 2000; Freckleton & Watkinson 2001; Rice & Dyer 2001; Harmon & Stamp 2002).”
• Competitive dynamics in two‐ and three‐component intercrops (2007, unknown): “Sizeasymmetric competition between species (Connolly & Wayne 1996; Freckleton & Watkinson 2001) tends to compound such an initial size advantage, so initial differences in size may explain the increasing competitive impact of barley towards its companion crops throughout most of the cropping season.”
• Testing the roles of competition, facilitation and stochasticity on community structure in a species‐rich assemblage (2014, methodology): “Model parameters were estimated from the dynamics of the number of individuals of each species observed in each square (Rees, Grubb & Kelly 1996; Freckleton & Watkinson 2001b).”
• Dispersion of traits related to competitive ability in an old‐field plant community (2007, background): “1997; Freckleton & Watkinson 2001; Howard & Goldberg 2001; Keddy et al .”
• Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade‐off: competitive interactions and spatial patterns in a guild of annual plants (2004, background): “…Gross 1984; McConnaughay & Bazzaz 1987; Eriksson & Eriksson 1997; Freckleton & Watkinson 2001b; Dalling & Hubbell 2002; Leishman 2001), although fewer studies have directly quantified a relationship between seed size and competitive advantage (Freckleton & Watkinson 2001b; Rodriguez-Girones et al .”
• Inferring species interactions in ecological communities: a comparison of methods at different levels of complexity (2015, background): “Methods EX and RY (especially363 RY) are well-suited for analyses of simple population and community dynamics, and they better364 apply to transitive communities (Freckleton & Watkinson 2001; Perkins, Holmes & Weltzin365 2007).”
• A NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS OF TREE GROWTH AND SURVIVAL IN A HURRICANE‐DRIVEN TROPICAL FOREST (2004, background): “Key words: competitive coefficient; equivalent competitors; growth, size-dependent; hurricane disturbance; Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot, Puerto Rico; mortality, size-dependent; neighborhood effects; neutral theory.”
• Forecasting plant community impacts of climate variability and change: when do competitive interactions matter? (2012, methodology): “An observational approach could rely on relationships between functional traits and pairwise interaction coefficients (Freckleton & Watkinson 2001; Berlow et al. 2009).”
• Using Assembly Theory to Explain Changes in a Weed Flora in Response to Agricultural Intensification (2010, background): “Plant height and seed size are useful indicator traits of plant ecological strategy (Gaudet and Keddy 1988; Westoby 1998) as they are correlated with a number of other traits as a result of eco-physiological trade-offs (Freckleton and Watkinson 2001).”
• Colonization, tolerance, competition and seed-size variation within functional groups (2003, methodology): “asymmetric. Two recent experiments cast doubt on whether largerseeded species have enough of a competitive advantage to promote coexistence by this mechanism. Freckleton and Watkinson [ 65 ] quantified”
• Identifying mechanisms of competition in multi‐species communities (2007, background): “…concerning plant competition, as has been shown previously for quantifying competition for resources (Firbank & Watkinson 1985; Connolly 1987; Freckleton & Watkinson 1997, 1999, 2001a), competitive asymmetry (Connolly & Wayne 1996; Freckleton & Watkinson 2001b), spatial competition (Rees et…”
• Scaling from Traits to Ecosystems: Developing a General Trait Driver Theory via Integrating Trait-Based and Metabolic Scaling Theories (2015, background): “Thus, TDT is consistent with a competitive trait hierarchy view of assemblage interactions (Freckleton and Watkinson, 2001; Goldberg and Landa, 1991; Kunstler et al., 2012; Mayfield and Levine, 2010) as well as a population source–sink view of assemblage (Pulliam, 1988) and metapopulation perspectiv”