1988
DOI: 10.2307/1941654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Competition and Abiotic Stress Among Trees and Shrubs in Northwest Colorado

Abstract: We tested several hypotheses about the relationship of competition to abiotic stress, using the vegetation of the semiarid Piceance Basin of northwestern Colorado. We studied competition among the shrubs Amelanchier utahensis, Artemisia tridentata, and Symphoricarpos oreophilus, and between the trees Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma, in 10 sites. We calculated several indices of biotic moisture stress, based on the slope, aspect, and evaluation of each site. Competition was measured by regression of the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
48
2

Year Published

1989
1989
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
48
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Wilson and Keddy 1986;Campbell and Grime 1992;Turkington et al 1993;Bonser and Reader 1995;Gaudet and Keddy 1995;Kadmon 1995) or to have no relation to productivity (e.g. Welden et al 1988;Di Tomasso and Aarssen 1991;Wilson and Shay 1990;Wilson and Tilman 1993;Cahill 1999). Our results show a clear relationship between community above-ground phytomass and competition intensity when the latter is calculated using population-level measures, such as number of shoots.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 43%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Wilson and Keddy 1986;Campbell and Grime 1992;Turkington et al 1993;Bonser and Reader 1995;Gaudet and Keddy 1995;Kadmon 1995) or to have no relation to productivity (e.g. Welden et al 1988;Di Tomasso and Aarssen 1991;Wilson and Shay 1990;Wilson and Tilman 1993;Cahill 1999). Our results show a clear relationship between community above-ground phytomass and competition intensity when the latter is calculated using population-level measures, such as number of shoots.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 43%
“…Weiner 1980;Fowler 1982;Berendse 1983;Johansson and Keddy 1991). The third study addressing the importance of competition (Welden et al 1988) established no relationship either between competition intensity and water stress, or between importance of competition and water stress for shrubs in northwestern Colorado. The effect of productivity on interactions between species was not studied directly in any of these papers, although water stress may be related to productivity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a comparison of three plant species C imp decreased with fertility but it was suggested that competitive importance was dependent on the ability of the species to tolerate low resource availability (Gaucherand et al 2006). Sammul et al (2000), using a different calculation of competitive importance, reported a correlation between both C int and C imp when competition was calculated using the number of shoots rather than biomass, and Welden et al (1988) detected no relationship between importance or intensity and a water stress gradient for desert shrubs. We observed a reduction in competitive importance due to clipping under the high resource conditions for F. campestris, which further supports arguments that competition in CSR theory is best measured with this index because the measure of competition declines when additional processes are in place.…”
Section: Competitive Intensity and Competitive Importancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, recent meta-analysis suggests that some results will be unexpected and largely inconsistent with this hypothesis (Goldberg et al 1999;Maestre et al 2005). The effects of competition in arid plant communities can be inferred from the study of the relationship between distance and size of neighbouring plants (Pielou 1962;Fowler 1986;Welden et al 1988;Wilson 1991;Briones et al 1996). The hypothesis is that competition between neighbours results in density-dependent growth and mortality; thus, closely spaced plants will be small and have low survivorship (Pielou 1962;Fowler 1986).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%