INTRASPECIFIC AGGREGATION ALTERS COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS IN EXPERIMENTAL PLANT COMMUNITIES

By P. Stoll, D. Prati. 2001

359 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bd17d99cd1ca44e40631a3ca4e8157655a3ce044

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

The Design of Experimental Tree Plantations for Functional Biodiversity Research (2005, background): “Nevertheless, the spatial pattern of mixed-species stands can influence community variables such as biomass in experiments with herbaceous species (Harper 1977; Schmid and Harper 1985; Stoll and Prati 2001 ).”
Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: emerging issues and their experimental test in aquatic environments (2004, neutral): “It is the extent of those interactions that needs to be understood when scaling up from processes observed within small homogeneous patches to heterogeneous landscapes (Stoll and Prati 2001 for a terrestrial perspective).”
Heteromyopia and the spatial coexistence of similar competitors (2002, background): “…plant competition experiments have this property (e.g. 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS Hector et al. 1999), and it is important to be aware that the outcome from one generation to the next can be determined by the spatial arrangement chosen at the start of the experiment (Stoll & Prati 2001).”
Designing forest biodiversity experiments: general considerations illustrated by a new large experiment in subtropical China (2014, background): “The spatial arrangement of individuals and species may aﬀect species interactions (Pacala & Deutschman 1995; Stoll & Prati 2001; Potvin & Gotelli 2008).”
Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology (2007, background): “Natural plant communities are frequently observed to have spatial structure, while some experiments demonstrate that spatial structure affects the intensity and outcome of interspecific interactions (Mack and Harper, 1977; Pacala, 1997; Stoll and Prati, 2001).”
Spatial point-pattern analysis for detecting density-dependent competition in a boreal chronosequence of Alberta (2009, background): “Stoll and Prati (2001) suggest that the spatial clustering of a species that has a higher likelihood of being out-competed, may improve the performance of that species in competition.”
Set-aside management: How do succession, sowing patterns and landscape context affect biodiversity? (2011, background): “Despite species-rich plant sowings and consideration of regional seed sources, set-asides often have low established richness due to high competitiveness of few, common species (Stoll and Prati, 2001).”
Does spatial pattern matter to ecosystem functioning? Insights from biological soil crusts (2005, neutral): “There is also a growing set of empirical studies showing that the spatial pattern of organisms alters phenomena such as population dynamics, species coexistence and community structure (Bergelson 1990; Stoll & Prati 2001; Tirado & Pugnaire 2003).”
Beyond description: the active and effective way to infer processes from spatial patterns. (2009, methodology): “…2001) (e.g., well-defined nonrandom processes can produce patterns indistinguishable from apparent random assembly; Cale et al. 1989, Molofsky et al. 2002); and (3) processes may also be the result of specific patterns (Stoll and Prati 2001)—a dominant paradigm of landscape ecology (Turner 1989).”
Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade‐off: competitive interactions and spatial patterns in a guild of annual plants (2004, background): “For example, spatial segregation generated by local dispersal will reduce the frequency of inter- relative to intraspecific interactions, therefore lessening the impact of interspecific competition at the population level (Pacala & Levin 1997; Bolker & Pacala 1999; Stoll & Prati 2001).”
Simulating Mediterranean landscape pattern and vegetation dynamics under different fire regimes (2006, background): “Similar results have been observed in field experiments (Stoll and Prati 2001).”
Mechanisms promoting plant coexistence: can all the proposed processes be reconciled? (2004, neutral): “…common in plant communities, have first been thought as factors promoting stable coexistence with the rationale that spatial segregation decreases the intensity of interspecific competition and increases intraspecific competition (Pacala and Levin 1997, Stoll and Prati 2001, Murell et al. 2002).”
Species associations in an old‐growth temperate forest in north‐eastern China (2010, neutral): “Journal compilation 2010 British Ecological Society, Journal of Ecology, 98, 674–686 (or retards) the elimination of competitively inferior species (Stoll & Prati 2001).”