Importance versus intensity of ecological effects: Why context matters

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 383-388

  Kikvidze, Zaal ^a,b   Suzuki, Maki ^a   Brooker, Rob ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b ILIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (Georgia)

^c SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION (ECOLOGY); ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; PLANT COMMUNITY; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOTA; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; EVOLUTION; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BIOTA; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PLANT PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA;

EID: 79960215233     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.003     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Chesson P., Huntly N. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am. Nat. 1997, 150:519-553.
2. Sears A.L.W., Chesson P. New methods for quantifying the spatial storage effect: an illustration with desert annuals. Ecology 2007, 88:2240-2247.
3. Welden C.W., Slauson W.L. The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Q. Rev. Biol. 1986, 61:23-44.
4. Grace J.B. A clarification of the debate between Grime and Tilman. Funct. Ecol. 1991, 5:583-587.
5. Grace J.B. The effects of habitat productivity on competition intensity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993, 8:229-230.
6. Brooker R.W., et al. The importance of importance. Oikos 2005, 109:63-70.
7. Kikvidze Z., Brooker R.W. Towards more exact definition of the importance of competition - reply to Freckleton et al. (2009). J. Ecol. 2010, 98:719-724.
8. Brooker R.W., Kikvidze Z. Importance: an overlooked concept in plant interaction research. J. Ecol. 2008, 96:703-708.
9. Damgaard C., Fayolle A. Measuring the importance of competition: a new formulation of the problem. J. Ecol. 2010, 98:1-6.
10. Dhondt A.A. Effects of competition on great and blue tit reproduction: intensity and importance in relation to habitat quality. J. Anim. Ecol. 2010, 79:257-265.
11. Kunstler G., et al. Effects of competition on tree radial-growth vary in importance but not in intensity along climatic gradients. J. Ecol. 2011, 99:300-312.
12. Lamb E.G., et al. Shoot, but not root, competition reduces community diversity in experimental mesocosms. J. Ecol. 2009, 97:155-163.
13. Seifan M., et al. Facilitating an importance index. J. Ecol. 2010, 98:356-361.
14. Grime J.P. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 1973, 242:344-347.
15. Grime J.P. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes and Ecosystem Properties 2001, J. Wiley & Sons. 2nd edn.
16. Kikvidze Z., Armas C. Plant interaction indices based on experimental plant performance data. Positive Plant Interactions and Community Dynamics 2010, 17-37. CRC Press. F. Pugnaire (Ed.).
17. Both C. Density dependence of avian clutch size in resident and migrant species: is there a constraint on the predictability of competitor density? J. Avian Biol. 2000, 31:412-417.
18. Brooker R.W., et al. Don't diss integration: a comment on Ricklefs's disintegrating communities. Am. Nat. 2009, 174:919-927.
19. Ricklefs R.E. Disintegration of the ecological community. Am. Nat. 2008, 172:741-750.
20. Ricklefs R.E. A brief response to Brooker et al.'s comment. Am. Nat. 2009, 174:928-931.
21. Vellend M. Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 2010, 85:183-206.
22. Lawton J.H. Are there general laws in ecology?. Oikos 1999, 84:177-192.
23. Leibold M.A., et al. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7:601-613.
24. Hu X.-S., et al. Species diversity in local neutral communities. Am. Nat. 2007, 170:844-853.
25. Bertness M.D., Callaway R.M. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1994, 9:191-193.
26. Brooker R.W., Callaghan T.V. The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos 1998, 81:196-207.
27. Callaway R.M. Positive Interactions and Interdependence in Plant Communities 2007, Springer-Verlag.
28. Michalet R., et al. Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities?. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:767-773.
29. Gaucherand S., et al. Importance and intensity of competition along a fertility gradient and across species. J. Veg. Sci. 2006, 17:455-464.
30. Brooker R.W., et al. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present and the future. J. Ecol. 2008, 96:18-34.
31. Connell J.H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 1978, 199:1302-1309.
32. Grime J.P. Control of species density in herbaceous vegetation. J. Environ. Manag. 1973, 1:151-167.
33. Horn H.S. Markovian properties of forest succession. Ecology and Evolution of Communities 1975, 196-211. Belknap. M.L. Diamond, J.M. Cody (Eds.).
34. Huston M.A. A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat. 1979, 113:81-101.
35. Huston M.A. Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes 1994, Cambridge University Press.
36. Mackay R.L., Currie D.J. The diversity-disturbance relationship: is it generally strong and peaked?. Ecology 2001, 82:3479-3492.
37. Haddad N.M., et al. Species traits predict the effects of disturbance and productivity on diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11:348-356.
38. Roxburgh S.H., et al. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology 2004, 85:359-371.
39. Shea K., et al. Moving from pattern to process: coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7:491-508.
40. Suzuki M., et al. Deer density affects ground-layer vegetation differently in conifer plantations and hardwood forests on the Boso Peninsula. Japan Ecol. Res. 2008, 23:151-158.
41. Sasaki M., et al. Management applicability of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis across Mongolian rangeland ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19:423-432.
42. Bongers F., et al. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis applies to tropical forests, but disturbance contributes little to tree diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:798-805.
43. Harsch M.A., et al. Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:1040-1049.
44. Schöb C., et al. Counterbalancing effects of competition for resources and facilitation against grazing in alpine snowbed communities. Oikos 2010, 119:1571-1580.
45. Guisan A., Thuiller W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8:993-1009.
46. Hampe A. Bioclimate envelope models: what they detect and what they hide. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 2004, 13:469-470.
47. O'Neill G.A., et al. Accounting for population variation improves estimates of the impact of climate change on species' growth and distribution. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45:1040-1049.
48. Beale C., et al. Opening the climate envelope reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:14908-14912.
49. Freckleton R., et al. Measuring the importance of competition in plant communities. J. Ecol. 2009, 97:379-384.
50. Gotelli N., Colwell R.K. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 2001, 4:379-391.