Soil‐related performance variation and distributions of tree species in a Bornean rain forest

By S. Russo, Stuart Davies, D. A. King, Sylvester Tan. 2005

291 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fff50a97dfdb13d01488b7b4a08d3778f763764f

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

Citations in the corpus

CTFS‐ForestGEO: a worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global change (2015, background): “Census typically repeated every 5 years Characterize demographic rates and changes therein (Russo et al., 2005; MullerLandau et al., 2006a,b; Feeley et al., 2007a; Lai et al., 2013; Stephenson et al., 2014); characterize changes in community composition (Losos & Leigh, 2004; Chave et al., 2008;…”
How much variation in tree mortality is predicted by soil and topography in Central Amazonia (2011, background): “…shown that soil and topography influence the spatial distribution of above-ground live biomass (Laurance et al., 1999; Castilho et al., 2006) and plant species composition (e.g., Harms et al., 2001; Russo et al., 2005; John et al., 2007; Costa et al., 2005) at a mesoscale (10–100 km) in Amazonia.”
Is the spatial distribution of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) limited by its potential height growth? (2008, background): “All these factors act on plant fitness components such as mortality (Woodward, 1997; Russo et al., 2005), reproduction (Pigott & Huntley, 1978, 1981; Woodward, 1997; Hennenberg & Bruelheide, 2003) or growth (Bonan & Sirois, 1992; Schenk, 1996; Russo et al.”
Growth and wood density predict tree mortality in Amazon forests (2008, background): “The fundamental factors that influence species compositional differences may still relate to environmental drivers as has been shown at smaller scales in forests elsewhere (e.g. Ashton & Hall 1992; Russo et al. 2005).”
Soil resource availability shapes community trait structure in a species‐rich dipterocarp forest (2012, background): “Ranked in descending order of fertility and moisture, these are clay (C), fine loam (FL), loam (L) and sandy loam (SL) (Davies et al. 2005; Russo et al. 2005).”
The world‐wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto (2014, background): “The role of traits in relation to nutrient economy has been examined jointly with light in forested systems (e.g. Russo et al. 2005; Baltzer & Thomas 2007a,b; Holste, Kobe & Vriesendorp 2011).”
Multi‐stemmed trees in montane rain forests: their frequency and demography in relation to elevation, soil nutrients and disturbance (2009, result): “Thus our finding that the lowest turnover of trees, both single- and multi-stemmed, in Jamaican montane forests is in sites with the lowest soil Bray-extractable P, is consistent with other studies which have shown lowest turnover rates in forests on sites of low productivity (Russo et al. 2005; Ste”
Interspecific demographic trade‐offs and soil‐related habitat associations of tree species along resource gradients (2007, unknown): “These associations arise partly due to sorting of species among soil-related habitats as trees age (Russo et al. 2005).”
A greater range of shade‐tolerance niches in nutrient‐rich forests: an explanation for positive richness–productivity relationships? (2009, background): “depleted soil may contribute to compositional shifts along edaphic gradients (Grime 1977; Lambers & Poorter 1992; Russo et al. 2005).”
The role of wood density and stem support costs in the growth and mortality of tropical trees (2006, background): “2003) and between mean growth rate and the typical fertility of the soil on which a species occurs (Russo et al. 2005).”
Resource‐based habitat associations in a neotropical liana community (2012, result): “…found in this study, compared to the much stronger correlation between trees and soil variables found in this and other forests (Clark, Palmer & Clark 1999; Russo et al. 2005; John et al. 2007), suggests that lianas may not respond as strongly as predicted to increased nutrient deposition.”