Density dependence in an annual plant community: variation among life history stages

By D. Goldberg, R. Turkington, L. Olsvig‐Whittaker, A. R. Dyer. 2001

190 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/7711f3f8306226701b4f3c8fe31bc4e998a904f1

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

Differing effects of shade‐induced facilitation on growth and survival during the establishment of a chenopod shrub (2003, background): “This might explain why our results show facilitative effects of shade on both growth and survival, instead of only facilitating survival as hypothesized by Goldberg et al. (2001).”
Facilitation of Quercus ilex in Mediterranean shrubland is explained by both direct and indirect interactions mediated by herbs (2010, background): “Differences in species composition may affect the competitive capacity of the community (Gordon et al. 1989), and graminoids tend to prevail under drought conditions (Goldberg et al. 2001).”
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).”
Spatio-temporal heterogeneity in abiotic factors modulate multiple ontogenetic shifts between competition and facilitation (2010, background): “This is less likely to occur when the nurse and protégée share the same ecological traits (e.g. annuals: Goldberg et al., 2001; Schiffers and Tielbörger, 2006; or shrubs: Miriti, 2006), as they are likely exhibiting greater niche overlap (Maestre et al., 2009a) and the increase of standing…”
Under strong niche overlap conspecifics do not compete but help each other to survive: facilitation at the intraspecific level (2010, background): “According to Goldberg et al. (2001) the different response of density-dependence between survival and growth may be explained in terms of fundamental differences between processes affecting both survival and growth, e.g. resource retention vs. resource uptake.”
STRESS TOLERANCE AND COMPETITIVE-RESPONSE ABILITY DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF BIOTIC INTERACTIONS (2005, result): “…observed for survival but not for growth, water retention is more likely to be the driving mechanism, consistent with the conclusions of Goldberg and Novoplansky (1997), who argued that variation in nutrient availability is more likely to affect growth than survival (see also Goldberg et al. 2001).”
Intra and interspecific competition among invasive and native species during early stages of plant growth (2011, background): “Other research, however, has indicated that competition may be relatively rare early after germination, but may be critical in determining the final plant biomass (Goldberg et al. 2001).”
A spatially explicit model of sapling growth in a tropical forest: does the identity of neighbours matter? (2004, background): “We focus on this life-history stage because asymmetry in competition for resources and light implies that neighbourhood effects will have the greatest impact on fitness and, implicitly, on population growth, for relatively small sized trees (Weiner 1990; Goldberg et al . 2001 ).”
Is the change of plant–plant interactions with abiotic stress predictable? A meta‐analysis of field results in arid environments (2005, background): “Thus, there is no reason to expect different aspects of plant performance to respond in a similar way regarding facilitation and competition ( Goldberg et al. 1999, 2001; Hastwell & Facelli 2003).”