Density-dependent sea urchin grazing: differential removal of species, changes in community composition and alternative community states

By Jeffrey T. Wright, Symon A. Dworjanyn, C. N. Rogers, Peter D. Steinberg, Jane E. Williamson, A. Poore. 2005

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Oceanography

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8b3fb20b028aaa3388426d642b6b6cfeb9834108

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. S. Connell
2. A. Irving
3. Peter D. Steinberg
4. A. Poore
5. T. Wernberg
6. L. Airoldi
7. Gary A. Kendrick
8. S. Dudgeon

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. S. Connell

In Oceanography

1. S. Connell
2. A. Irving
3. A. Campbell
4. Peter D. Steinberg
5. A. Poore
6. T. Wernberg
7. L. Airoldi
8. Gary A. Kendrick

Citations in the corpus

• Natural densities of mesograzers fail to limit growth of macroalgae or their epiphytes in a temperate algal bed (2009, result): “This contrasts strongly to the well-documented effects of macrograzers (urchins, fish and gastropods) on the same subtidal reefs (Fletcher 1987; Wright et al. 2005).”
• Integrating ecology with biogeography using landscape characteristics: a case study of subtidal habitat across continental Australia (2008, background): “Centrostephanus rodgersii was restricted to Eastern Australia, and its density was assessed from a hierarchy of three random sites within each of the five locations: Eden, Batemans Bay, Jervis Bay, Sydney and Swansea.”