MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Monographs · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKillam TrustsUniversity of MichiganNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDensity dependenceCompetition (biology)Intraspecific competitionEcologyPopulation densityBiologyPopulationHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations187
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological MonographsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207