Within-genus size distributions in angiosperms: Small is better

Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 283-293

  Dombroskie, Sarah L ^a   Aarssen, Lonnie W ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Competition; Fecundity allocation; Leaf size; Physical space niche; Plant height; Reproductive economy; Seed size; Speciation; Species size distribution

Indexed keywords

ANGIOSPERM; BIOMASS; BODY SIZE; FECUNDITY; NATURAL SELECTION; PHYLOGENY; SEED SIZE; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

EID: 78049462471     PISSN: 14338319     EISSN: 16180437     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ppees.2010.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Aarssen L.W. Why don't bigger plants have proportionately bigger seeds?. Oikos 2005, 111:199-207.
2. Aarssen L.W. Death without sex - the 'problem of the small' and selection for reproductive economy in flowering plants. Evol. Ecol. 2008, 22:279-298.
3. Aarssen L.W., Keogh T. Conundrums of competitive ability in plants: what to measure?. Oikos 2002, 96:531-542.
4. Aarssen L.W., Schamp B.S. Predicting distributions of species richness and species size in regional floras: applying the species pool hypothesis to the habitat templet model. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2002, 5:3-12.
5. Aarssen L.W., Schamp B.S., Pither J. Why are there so many small plants? Implications for species coexistence. J. Ecol. 2006, 94:569-580.
6. Ali, S.I., Qaiser, M., 2009. Flora of Pakistan. September 2009-December 2009. Available from: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/pakistan/welcome.shtml.
7. Allen C.R., Garmestani A.S., Havlicek T.D., Marquet P.A., Peterson G.D., Restrepo C., Stow C.A., Weeks B.E. Patterns in body mass distributions: sifting among alternative hypotheses. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:630-643.
8. Australian Biological Resource Study, 2009. Flora of Australia Online. September 2009-December 2009. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/flora/main/.
9. Chambers J., Aarssen L.W. Offspring for the next generation: most are produced by small plants within herbaceous populations. Evol. Ecol. 2009, 23:737-751.
10. Fenchel T. There are more small than large species?. Oikos 1993, 68:375-378.
11. Fitter, A.H., Peat, H.J., 1994. The Ecological Flora Database. September 2009-December 2009. Available from: http://www.ecoflora.co.uk/.
12. Flora of North American Editorial Committee, 1993a. Flora of North American North of Mexico, vol. 15, September 2009-December 2009. Available from: http://www.fna.org/.
13. Flora of North America Editorial Committee Flora of North America North of Mexico 1993, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, vol. 3, 1997; vol. 5, 2005; vol. 21, 2006; vol. 22, 2000; vol. 26, 2002.
14. Frodin D.G. History and concepts of big plant genera. Taxon 2004, 53:753-776.
15. Gleason H.A., Cronquist A. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada 1991, The New York Botanical Garden, New York.
16. Goldberg D.E. Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B 1996, 351:1377-1385.
17. Grace J.B. On the relationship between plant traits and competitive ability. Perspectives on Plant Competition 1990, 51-65. Academic Press, London. J.B. Grace, D. Tilman (Eds.).
18. Perspectives on Plant Competition 1990, Academic Press, London. J.B. Grace, D. Tilman (Eds.).
19. Grime J.P. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes 1979, Wiley, New York.
20. Keating L.M., Aarssen L.W. Big plants - do they limit species coexistence?. J. Plant Ecol. 2009, 2:119-124.
21. Keddy P.A. Competition 2001, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2nd ed.
22. Kingsolver J.G., Pfennig D.W. Individual-level selection as a cause of Cope's rule of phyletic size increase. Evolution 2004, 58:1608-1612.
23. Kleiman D., Aarssen L.W. The leaf size/number trade-off in trees. J. Ecol. 2007, 95:376-382.
24. Knouft J.H., Page L.M. The evolution of body size in extant groups of North American freshwater fishes: speciation, size distributions, and Cope's rule. Am. Nat. 2003, 161:413-421.
25. Leishman M.R., Wright I.J., Moles A.T., Westoby M. The evolutionary ecology of seed size. Seeds: the Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities 2000, 31-57. CAB International. M. Fenner (Ed.).
26. Mabberley D.J. The Plant Book: A Portable Dictionary of the Higher Plants 1993, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
27. McGlone M.S., Richardson S.J., Jordan G.J. Comparative biogeography of New Zealand trees: species richness, height, leaf traits and range sizes. N Z J. Ecol. 2010, 34:137-151.
28. Mencuccini M., Martinez-Vilalta J., Vanderklein D., Hamid H.A., Korakaki E., Lee S., et al. Size-mediated aging reduces vigour in trees. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8:1183-1190.
29. Milla R. The leafing intensity premium hypothesis tested across clades, growth forms and altitudes. J. Ecol. 2009, 97:972-983.
30. Moles A.T., Falster D.S., Leishman M.R., Westoby M. Small seeded species produce more seeds per square meter of canopy per year, but not per individual per lifetime. J. Ecol. 2004, 92:384-396.
31. Moles A.T., Warton D.I., Warman L., Swenson N.G., Laffan S.W., Zanne A.E., Pitman A., Hemmings F.A., Frank A., Leishman M.R. Global patterns in plant height. J. Ecol. 2009, 97:923-932.
32. Neytcheva M., Aarssen L.W. More plant biomass results in more offspring production in annuals, or does it?. Oikos 2008, 117:1298-1307.
33. Niklas K.J., Midgley J.J., Rand R.H. Size dependent species richness: trends within plant communities and across latitude. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6:631-636.
34. Ogawa K. The leaf mass/number trade-off of Kleiman and Aarssen implies constancy of leaf biomass, its density and carbon uptake in forest stands: scaling up from shoot to stand level. J. Ecol. 2008, 96:188-191.
35. Pennisi E. On the origin of flowering plants. Science 2009, 324:28-31.
36. Poorter L., Hawthorne W., Bongers F., Sheil D. Maximum size distributions in tropical forest communities: relationships with rainfall and disturbance. J. Ecol. 2008, 96:495-504.
37. Purvis A., Orme C.D.L., Dolphine K. Why are most species small-bodied? A phylogenetic view. Macroecology: Concepts and Consequences 2003, 155-173. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. T.M. Blackburn, K.J. Gaston (Eds.).
38. Qian H. Floristic analysis of vascular plant genera of North America North of Mexico: characteristics of phytogeography. J. Biogeogr. 1999, 26:1307-1321.
39. Schamp B.S., Aarssen L.W. The assembly of forest communities according to maximum species height along resource and disturbance gradients. Oikos 2009, 118:564-572.
40. Schamp B.S., Chau J., Aarssen L.W. Dispersion of traits related to competitive ability in an old-field plant community. J. Ecol. 2008, 96:204-212.
41. Smithsonian Institution, 2009. Flora of the Hawaiian Islands. September 2009-December 2009. Available from: http://botany.si.edu/pacificislandbiodiversity/hawaiianflora/.
42. Thompson K.O.L., Petchey A.P., Askew N.P., Dunnett A.P., Beckerman, Willis A.J. Little evidence for limiting similarity in a long-term study of a roadside plant community. J. Ecol. 2010, 98:480-487.
43. Tilman D. Resource Competition and Community Structure 1982, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
44. Western Australia Herbarium, 2009. FloraBase: the Western Australia Flora. September 2009-December 2009. Available from: http://florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/.
45. Whitman T., Aarssen L.W. The leaf size/number trade-off in herbaceous angiosperms. J. Plant Ecol. 2010, 3:49-58.
46. Yang D., Li G., Sun S. The generality of leaf size versus number trade-off in temperate woody species. Ann. Bot. 2008, 102:623-629.
47. Zhengyi, W., Raven, P.H., Deyuan, H., 2009. The Flora of China Online, vol. 17. September 2009-December 2009. Available from: http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/.