A COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHY OF PLANTS BASED UPON ELASTICITIES OF VITAL RATES

By M. Franco, J. Silvertown. 2004

344 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/a40f4f8c71b4db684fc8b5b9150b6a514daf3523

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

Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. (2010, background): “Examples include differences in species abilities to draw down common limiting resources (Tilman 1987), differences in susceptibility to predation by generalist consumers (Chesson & Kuang 2008), and variation in the number of viable offspring produced per parent (Franco & Silvertown 2004).”
What do matrix population models reveal about the sustainability of non‐timber forest product harvest? (2011, methodology): “LOOKING BEYOND k For all populations of each species, we calculated the elasticity of k to proportional change in vital rates rather than to changes in matrix elements aij (Franco & Silvertown 2004).”
Boom or bust? A comparative analysis of transient population dynamics in plants (2010, methodology): “Larger comparative analyses have found general patterns according to life history (Silvertown et al. 1993; Franco & Silvertown 2004; Burns et al. 2010).”
Can life‐history traits predict the response of forb populations to changes in climate variability? (2010, unknown): “…life history: species with shorter generation times and life span should be more sensitive to changes in recruit- ment than to changes in survival (Heppell, Caswell & Crowder 2000; Sæther & Bakke 2000; Oli & Dobson 2003; Franco & Silvertown 2004; Gaillard et al. 2005; Garcia, Pico & Ehrlen 2008).”
Functional traits explain variation in plant life history strategies (2013, methodology): “Species with slow life histories have population growth rates with high elasticities to survival, whereas species with fast life histories have relatively higher elasticities to individual growth or fecundity (29, 30).”
Non‐target effects of broadleaf herbicide on a native perennial forb: a demographic framework for assessing and minimizing impacts (2009, result): “Both results are consistent with patterns in most long-lived perennial plants (Silvertown et al. 1993; Franco and Silvertown 2004 ); survival of mature plants is more important than fecundity per se. These methods could be used to conclude incorrectly that management that negatively affects fecundi”
Dispersal and demography contributions to population spread of Carduus nutans in its native and invaded ranges (2008, methodology): “The relative magnitude and direction of the c*-LTRE values also present a powerful and standardized method for comparison among populations, species and studies (cf. Silvertown et al. 1993; Franco & Silvertown 2004).”
General guidelines for invasive plant management based on comparative demography of invasive and native plant populations (2008, methodology): “When the transition matrix was unavailable or impossible to reconstruct, we used life span estimates provided by other studies (Loehle 1988; Franco & Silvertown 2004).”
Keeping plant shrinkage in the demographic loop (2010, methodology): “For a complete description of the analytical 1Please note that the established terminology (Caswell 2001; Franco & Silvertown 2004) uses ‘q’ to denote both the retrogression vital rate in a projection matrix as well as the damping ratio.”
The compadre Plant Matrix Database: an open online repository for plant demography (2015, unknown): “…ﬁ nement of this method to estimate the elasticity of the basic vital rates survival, growth and fecundity, rather than that of matrix elements that only approximate them (Franco & Silvertown 2004) triggered interest in the comparative use of MPMs for hundreds of plant species (Crone et al. 2011).”