Describing and quantifying interspecific interactions: a commentary on recent approaches

By P. Abrams. 2001

123 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9c1ff9c09b90d1c00681992c9c86c151a8ae414c

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 Genetics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Diversity in a complex ecological network with two interaction types (2009, background): “Third, we have assumed linear functional responses in the dynamic model (Abrams 2001), which implies unrealistic consumer and pollinator behavior in most cases.”
CONNECTING THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF TRAIT‐MEDIATED INTERACTIONS (2003, methodology): “…has suggested, to measure the curvatures of cost–benefit functions that theorists have identified as being important: ‘‘much can be deduced about the nature of indirect effects with a little knowledge about the shapes of foraging cost-and-benefit functions’’ (Abrams 1992b; see also Abrams 2001).”
The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis (2002, background): “…in the density of a focal species following competitor manipulation may be considered over any time-scale and following any amount of change in competitor populations; different magnitudes of such manipulations may give qualitatively different answers (Bender et al. 1984; Abrams 1998, 2001b).”
Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection (2003, methodology): “By using isodars, we have revealed the functional forms of species interactions required by contemporary theories (Abrams 2001).”
Temperature‐dependent interactions explain unexpected responses to environmental warming in communities of competitors (2004, background): “Abrams 2001 ). We assumed linear species interactions in our experiments, both because we did not have the large amount of data required to fit nonlinear models, and because the population dynamics of competing protists can be approximated well by Lotka‐ Volterra models (Gause 1934; Vandermeer 1969)”
Strong and weak trophic cascades along a productivity gradient (2003, background): “As a result, increased attention has been directed towards measuring the relative strengths of these factors (Brett and Goldman 1996, 1997, Osenberg and Mittelbach 1996, Wootton 1997, Laska and Wootton 1998, Berlow et al. 1999, Abrams 2001, Shurin et al. 2002).”
Community assembly along a species pool gradient: implications for multiple-scale patterns of species diversity (2004, background): “…consistent with the skewed distributions of interaction strengths found in natural communities (Paine 1992; Berlow et al. 1999; McCann 2000, but see Abrams 2001; Sala and Graham 2002) than do methods that assume that aij and bi are distributed uniform randomly (Post and Pimm 1983; Case 1990; Drake…”
Invasive species impact: asymmetric interactions between invasive and endemic freshwater snails (2008, background): “Dynamic indices also are realistic because most communities are not in equilibrium (Laska and Wootton 1998), especially when invasive species are involved (Abrams 2001).”
MEASUREMENT OF INTERACTION STRENGTH IN NATURE (2005, methodology): “Hence, a second approach would estimate all parameters in all plausible nonlinear functions that describe interaction strength in an ecosystem (Abrams 2001).”