The Mechanisms and Consequences of Interspecific Competition Among Plants
By Erik T. Aschehoug, Rob W. Brooker, D. Atwater, J. Maron, R. Callaway. 2016
213 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/99c40326c8bba770e38dd6ae07555d617cab2468
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
- Priority effects and ecological restoration (2020, background): “Competition among plants may be for resources, or through the release of harmful chemicals that negatively influence other species (Aschehoug et al. 2016).”
- How mycorrhizal associations drive plant population and community biology (2020, background): “Classical plant ecology views competition either as direct interference between plant individuals or an indirect impact through resource depletion (72), but actual competitive interactions are much more complex owing to the involvement of antagonists andmutualists, including different mycorrhizal gu”
- How to quantify competitive ability (2018, background): “For example, the most recent comprehensive review of interspecific competition between plants (Aschehoug et al., 2016) concludes that the hundreds of studies that have examined the impacts of interspecific competition on the performance of individual plants “…have told us little about how such…”