IS SPACE NECESSARY? INTERFERENCE COMPETITION AND LIMITS TO BIODIVERSITY

By Frederick R. Adler, J. Mosquera. 2000

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c4123cdf24b717a80fbe4564248a4609851cc7b8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. Andy Hector
2. Michel Loreau
3. P. Amarasekare
4. D. Murrell
5. M. Cain
6. David A. Coomes
7. Lindsay A. Turnbull
8. Steven Higgins

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Andy Hector
2. Michel Loreau
3. P. Amarasekare
4. Steven Higgins
5. D. Murrell
6. M. Cain
7. David A. Coomes
8. M. Rees

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Michel Loreau
2. Andy Hector
3. P. Amarasekare
4. D. Murrell
5. Steven Higgins
6. R. Law
7. M. Cain
8. Madhur Anand

Citations in the corpus

• Spatially realistic plant metapopulation models and the colonization–competition trade‐off (2002, background): “Adler & Mosquera (2000) show that the nature of competitive advantage assumed in the occupancy model is sufficient to predict coexistence.”
• Does functional redundancy exist (2004, background): “…and colonisation abilities, can be viewed as a model of interference competition in which there is a trade-off between the ability for interference competition and the ability to use more resources and hence maintain a higher carrying capacity (Adler and Mosquera 2000, Kokkoris et al. 2002).”
• Heteromyopia and the spatial coexistence of similar competitors (2002, background): “Even if spatial processes do promote coexistence, there remains a question as to how important these processes are relative to other non-spatial ones ( Adler & Mosquera 2000; Chesson & Neuhauser 2002).”
• Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis (2003, background): “Several recent studies have shown that when the assumption of a strict dominance hierarchy is relaxed, the number of species that can coexist via a competitioncolonization trade-off is greatly reduced (Geritz et al. 1999; Adler & Mosquera 2000; Levine & Rees 2002).”
• Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade‐off: competitive interactions and spatial patterns in a guild of annual plants (2004, background): “This model demands that a single, fully transitive competitive dominance hierarchy exists across the entire habitat (Tilman 1994) and that competition is completely asymmetric (Geritz et al . 1999; Adler & Mosquera 2000; Levine & Rees 2002).”
• Symmetric competition causes population oscillations in an individual-based model of forest dynamics (2008, background): “, 2006 for a review) but within this field the mechanism underlying the individual relationships has rarely been explicitly taken into account (Adler and Mosquera, 2000).”