RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SPECIES TRAITS: SEPARATING LEVELS OF RESPONSE AND IDENTIFYING LINKAGES TO ABUNDANCE

By K. Suding, D. Goldberg, Kurt M. Hartman. 2003

185 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/a8598d34039dad42566e43078dc4d390e938de55

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

Differential genetic influences on competitive effect and response in Arabidopsis thaliana (2005, background): “Such variation has important implications for the current large-scale efforts that relate variation in plant traits to ecological process (e.g. competition) and community composition (Lavorel & Garnier 2002; Nash Suding et al. 2003).”
EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE (2005, background): “For example, what functional traits of species lead to dominance and how do traits for dominance overlap with functional effect traits (Weiher and Keddy 1999b, Suding et al. 2003)?”
Dispersal traits determine plant response to habitat connectivity in an urban landscape (2011, background): “Under ample resource conditions species are favored that are able to grow and reproduce in the presence of competitors (Goldberg and Barton 1992; Suding et al. 2003).”
Plant strategies and trait trade‐offs influence trends in competitive ability along gradients of soil fertility and disturbance (2005, background): “Thus, a knowledge of which trait trade-offs influence competitive ability along specific environmental gradients should enable greater general predictive ability (Tilman 1990b; Suding et al . 2003 ).”
GEMINI: a Grassland Model Simulating the Role of Plant Traits for Community Dynamics and Ecosystem F (2012, background): “Functional traits are linked with individual tolerances to simple abiotic factors (Suding et al., 2003; Louault et al., 2005; Gross et al., 2007a) and biotic interactions (Soussana and Lafarge, 1998; Gross et al.”
Plant functional types: are we getting any closer to the Holy Grail? (2007, background): “In order to better capture the complexities of community assembly, and how these may link to individual plant traits, Suding et al. (2003) proposed that trade-offs among species traits (e.”
Uncovering multiscale effects of aridity and biotic interactions on the functional structure of Mediterranean shrublands (2013, background): “Uncovering multiscale effects of aridity and biotic interactions on the functional structure of”
Interspecific demographic trade‐offs and soil‐related habitat associations of tree species along resource gradients (2007, unknown): “The aggregate of individual responses in a population produces emergent patterns, not only in functional trait variation among species (Reich et al. 2003; Westoby & Wright 2006), but also in species’ demographic responses (Poorter & Garnier 1999; Suding et al. 2003; Condit et al. 2006).”
STRESS TOLERANCE AND COMPETITIVE-RESPONSE ABILITY DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF BIOTIC INTERACTIONS (2005, methodology): “Similar to Suding et al. (2003), individual responses of the three target species to the water treatment were assessed by comparing the performances of transplants (biomass or proportion survival) grown without neighbors in the control plots and the watered plots using the natural-log-transformed…”
Integrating plant- and animal-based perspectives for more effective restoration of biodiversity (2016, background): “A frequent goal is to return the ecosystem to a historical state or ecological trajectory similar to that which existed before the ecosystem was severely modifi ed by human land use (Suding et al. 2003 ).”
Determinants of community organization of a South African mesic grassland (2005, background): “Identifying which traits are involved in these various trade-offs has considerable potential for predicting species responses to various environmental influences (Tilman 1990; Goldberg 1996; Lavorel & Garnier 2002; Suding et al. 2003).”
Strain and vegetation effects on local limiting resources explain the outcomes of biotic interactions (2010, methodology): “For strain calculations, we measured the growth of the target species under non-limiting conditions (Suding et al., 2003), by ensuring a surplus of resources, the presence of mutualisms and absence of negative interactions.”
Trade-off between root nitrogen acquisition and shoot nitrogen utilization across 13 co-occurring pasture grass species (2009, background): “They are hypothesized to reflect species adaptation to their local environment (Suding et al. 2003; Ackerly 2004) and trade-offs among traits can explain differences in species performance within and between habitats (Grime 1977; Wedin & Tilman 1993).”
A functional trait-based approach to understand community assembly and diversity-productivity relationships over 7 years in experimental grasslands (2013, background): “Plant traits differ in their association with different ecological processes, reflecting trade-offs in functional requirements which affect species performance in terms of survival, growth and reproduction (Suding et al., 2003).”
Dominant species identity regulates invasibility of old‐field plant communities (2006, background): “Knowing whether dominant species will have different effects as initial environmental ‘filters’ (Booth and Swanton 2002) on invasion may help managers and practitioners select effective species to use in restoration efforts to reduce or limit further invasions by non-natives or promote establishment”
Complementarity as a mechanism of coexistence between functional groups of grasses (2007, background): “2006), this index measures the net outcome of biotic interactions (Suding et al. 2003):”