MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte

DENSITY DEPENDENCE IN AN ANNUAL PLANT COMMUNITY: VARIATION AMONG LIFE HISTORY STAGES

2001· article· en· W2088511958 sur OpenAlexafffund
Deborah E. Goldberg, Roy Turkington, Linda Olsvig‐Whittaker, Andrew R. Dyer

Notice bibliographique

RevueEcological Monographs · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiquePlant and animal studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesKillam TrustsUniversity of MichiganNational Science Foundation
Mots-clésDensity dependenceCompetition (biology)Intraspecific competitionEcologyPopulation densityBiologyPopulationHabitatDemography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Most studies of density-dependent demography in plants consider the density only of the single focal species being studied. However, density-dependent regulation in plants may frequently occur at the level of the entire community, rather than only within particular species. In addition, because density dependence may differ considerably (even in direction) among demographic parameters, generalizing about patterns of density dependence and extrapolating to lifetime fitness and to population dynamics require comparisons among life history stages, as well as among types of species and physical environments. We constructed seminatural communities of desert annuals composed of all the constituent species in the same relative proportions as found in the natural habitat. These experimental communities were planted at a range of densities that extended far above and below mean natural field density. We compared among physical environments (irrigation treatments), among communities from different physical environments, and among growth forms (dicot and graminoid) to search for generalizations about the magnitude and direction of density dependence. Strong evidence of community-level density dependence was detected at all three life history stages studied in these desert annuals: emergence, survival, and final size. However, both the direction and degree of consistency of this density dependence varied considerably among the stages. The strongest and most consistent competitive effects were experienced at the emergence stage, where the mechanism is most likely a form of interference competition rather than exploitation competition. At the survival stage, the magnitude of effects was highly variable among physical environments and source communities, but negative effects were relatively rare, with either positive or no significant effects of increasing density. Thus, exploitation competition was also unimportant at the survival stage. In contrast, for growth, exploitation competition appeared to be the primary mechanism of interaction influencing growth. This variation in mechanism, direction, and magnitude of interactions among life history stages suggests that current models of plant community structure that are based largely on exploitation competition as it influences growth (with mortality a simple function of growth) are inadequate for even this simple annual plant community. We also compared growth forms and found that graminoids were superior competitors to dicots at the emergence and survival stages; they also had higher emergence and survival, regardless of density. Consistent with this result, grasses are always the numerical dominants in the source communities. In contrast, the two growth forms did not differ in competitive ability for growth, and dicots were consistently larger individuals, independent of density, even though grasses were also usually the biomass dominants in the source communities. These results suggest the importance of nontrophic mechanisms of interaction in controlling community structure and again emphasize the importance of constructing and testing models that incorporate multiple mechanisms of interactions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,092
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,923

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,215
Écart entre enseignants0,147 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations187
Publié2001
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEcological MonographsMême sujetPlant and animal studiesTravaux en français237 207