COMPETITIVE RESPONSE HIERARCHIES FOR GERMINATION, GROWTH, AND SURVIVAL AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON ABUNDANCE

By Timothy G. Howard, D. Goldberg. 2001

135 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/6b863846822233ee726c626a683b5fcf17d77458

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

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Warming changes plant competitive hierarchy in a temperate steppe in northern China (2008, background): “…plant interactions in mixtures can exert positive or negative impacts on the growth of some species (Bossdorf et al. 2004; Callaway et al. 2002; Howard and Goldberg 2001; Silletti et al. 2004), which in turn may influence plant community structure and plant responses to environmental change.”
The Interaction Between Propagule Pressure, Habitat Suitability and Density‐Dependent Reproduction in Species Invasion (2012, background): “Recruitment success is an essential, if not the essential, stage in a plant’s life history (Grubb 1977, Goldberg et al. 2001, Howard and Goldberg 2001, Albrecht and McCarthy 2009).”
Species evenness and productivity in experimental plant communities (2004, background): “For example, in an old-field plant community, the most common species had the strongest per-gram competitive effect, but there was no relationship between natural abundance and survival of neither seedlings nor adults (Howard 2001, Howard and Goldberg 2001).”
Community organization of tree species along soil gradients in a north‐eastern USA forest (2002, unknown): “189 Sapling growth and edaphic factors in north-east USA © 2002 British Ecological Society, Journal of Ecology , 90 , 188–200 organization along environmental gradients (Latham 1992; Huston 1994; Shipley & Keddy 1994; Howard & Goldberg 2001).”
Invasive ecotypes tolerate herbivory more effectively than native ecotypes of the Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum (2004, background): “We chose to focus on early life-history stages because they are more likely to reveal mechanisms that regulate community dynamics (Fenner 1987; Meiners & Handel 2000; Howard & Goldberg 2001; Sheppard et al .”
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 .”
Intra and interspecific competition among invasive and native species during early stages of plant growth (2011, background): “Therefore, these studies may not fully capture the variation in strength and direction of plant–plant interaction which may vary considerably among life-history stages (Goldberg et al. 2001; Howard and Goldberg 2001).”
Ontogenetic shifts in interactions among annual plants (2006, background): “Only a few studies have used two response variables (e.g. Sarukhan & Harper 1973; Ehrlén 1995a,b; Howard & Goldberg 2001) and even fewer have explicitly tested for differences between life-history stages.”
Indices of plant competition (2003, background): “Closely allied is the relative neighbour effect (RNE, nr. 5, Markham & Chanway 1996; Davis et al. 1998; Dormann et al. 2000; Howard 2001; and Howard & Goldberg 2001 as relative interaction intensity), which was suggested as an improvement of RCI to overcome its skewed distribution and facilitate…”
Global shifts towards positive species interactions with increasing environmental stress. (2013, result): “Our results suggest that variation in fitness measure has a large impact on the outcome of plant interactions (Goldberg et al. 1999; Howard & Goldberg 2001; G omez-Aparicio 2009).”
Effect of spatial scale on factors limiting species distributions in dry grassland fragments (2004, background): “…have been many attempts to relate either seedling numbers or adult distribution to environmental variables (e.g. Ehrlén & Eriksson 2000; Verheyen & Hermy 2001), the relationship between the two stages is often unknown (but see Howard & Goldberg 2001; Jutila 2003) and may depend on spatial scale.”
Above‐ versus below‐ground competitive effects and responses of a guild of temperate tree species (2009, background): “Howard & Goldberg 2001 ) with the dominant competitor defined either in terms of the strongest competitive effects on neighbours or the least competitive response to neighbours (Goldberg 1990; Goldberg & Landa 1991).”