The importance of importance

Oikos

Volumn 109, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 63-70

  Brooker, Rob ^a   Kikvidze, Zaal ^b   Pugnaire, Francisco I ^b   Callaway, Ragan M ^c   Choler, Philippe ^d   Lortie, Christopher J ^e   Michalet, Richard ^f  

^a NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^b DEPARTAMENTO DE ECOLOGÍA FUNCIONAL Y EVOLUTIVA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITÉ JOSEPH FOURIER   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^f UMR 1202 BIOGECO   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); PLANT COMMUNITY; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 17144392978     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13557.x     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Armas, C., Ordiales, R. and Pugnaire, F. I. 2004. Measuring plant interactions: a new comparative index. - Ecology 85: 2682-2686.
2. Bertness, M. D. and Callaway, R. 1994. Positive interactions in communities. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 191-193.
3. Brooker, R. W. and Callaghan, T. V. 1998. The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. - Oikos 81: 196-207.
4. Callaway, R. M. 1995. Positive interactions among plants. - Bot. Rev. 61: 306-349.
5. Callaway, R. M., Brooker, R., Choler, O. et al. 2002. Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress. - Nature 417: 844-847.
6. Connell, J. H. 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. - Oikos 35: 131-138.
7. Corcket, E., Liancourt, P., Callaway, R. et al. 2003. The relative importance of competition for two dominant grass species as affected by environmental manipulations in the field. - Ecoscience 10: 186-194.
8. Fortin, M.-J. and Jacquez, G. M. 2000. Randomisation tests and spatially autocorrelated data. - Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 81: 201-205.
9. Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1997a. Measuring plant neighbour effects. - Funct. Ecol. 11: 532-534.
10. Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1997b. Response to Markham. - Funct. Ecol. 11: 536.
11. Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1999. The mismeasurement of plant competition. - Funct. Ecol. 13: 285-287.
12. Goldberg, D. E. 1994. Influence of competition at the community level: an experimental version of the null models approach. - Ecology 75: 1503-1506.
13. Goldberg, D. E. and Barton, A. M. 1992. Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: a review of field experiments with plants. - Am. Nat. 139: 771-801.
14. Goldberg, D. E., Rajaniemi, T., Gurevitch, J. et al. 1999. Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. - Ecology 80: 1118-1131.
15. Grace, J. B. 1991. A clarification of the debate between Grime and Tilman. - Funct. Ecol. 5: 583-587.
16. Grace, J. B. 1993. The effects of habitat productivity on competition intensity. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 229-230.
17. Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D. 1990. Perspectives on plant competition. - Academic Press.
18. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. - Wiley.
19. Grubb, P. J. 1985. Plant populations and vegetation in relation to habitat, disturbance and competition: problems of generalization. - In: White, J. (ed.), The population structure of vegetation. Junk, Dordrecht.
20. Huston, M. A. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. - Am. Nat. 113: 81-101.
21. Jasienski, M. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1999. The fallacy of ratios and the testability of models in biology. - Oikos 84: 321-326.
22. Keddy, P. A. 1989. Competition. - Chapman and Hall.
23. Kikvidze, Z. and Ohsawa, M. 2002. Measuring the number of co-dominants in ecological communities. - Ecol. Res. 14: 519-525.
24. Manly, B. F. J. 1997. Randomisation, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. - Chapman and Hall.
25. Markham, J. H. 1997. Measuring and modelling plant neighbour effects: a reply to Freckleton and Watkinson. - Funct. Ecol. 11: 534-535.
26. Markham, J. H. and Chanway, C. P. 1996. Measuring plant neighbor effects. - Funct. Ecol. 10: 548-549.
27. Newman, E. I. 1973. Competition and diversity in herbaceous vegetation. - Nature 244: 311.
28. Peltzer, D. A. 1999. Measuring plant neighbour effects in different systems. - Funct. Ecol. 13: 283-284.
29. Pugnaire, F. I. and Luque, M. T. 2001. Changes in plant interactions along a gradient of environmental stress. - Oikos 93: 42-49.
30. Reader, R. J., Wilson, S. D., Belcher, J. W. et al. 1994. Plant competition in relation to neighbor biomass: an intercontinental study with foa pratensis. - Ecology 75: 1753-1760.
31. Roxburgh, S. H. and Matsuki, M. 1999. The statistical validation of null models used in spatial association analyses. - Oikos 85: 68-78.
32. Sammul, M., Kalevi, K., Oksanen, L. et al. 2000. Competition intensity and its importance: results of field experiments with Anthoxanthum odoratum. - Oecologia 125: 18-25.
33. Taylor, D. R., Aarssen, L. and Loehle, C. 1990. On the relationship between r/K selection and environmental carrying capacity: a new habitat templet for plant life history strategies. - Oikos 58: 239-250.
34. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. - Princeton Univ. Press.
35. Tilman, D. 1987. On the meaning of competition and the mechanisms of competitive superiority. - Funct. Ecol. 1: 304-315.
36. Tilman, D. 1988. Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. - Princeton Univ. Press.
37. Welden, C. W. and Slauson, W. L. 1986. The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. - Q. Rev. Biol. 61: 23-44.
38. Wilson, J. B. and Roxburgh, S. H. 2001. Intrinsic guild structure: determination from competition experiments. - Oikos 92: 189-192.