2016
DOI: 10.1890/14-2465
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How does habitat filtering affect the detection of conspecific and phylogenetic density dependence?

Abstract: 15Conspecific negative density-dependence (CNDD) has been recognized as a key mechanism 16 underlying species coexistence, especially in tropical forests. Recently, some studies have 17 reported that seedling survival is also negatively correlated with the phylogenetic relatedness 18 between neighbors and focal individuals -termed phylogenetic negative density-dependence 19 (PNDD). In contrast to CNDD or PNDD, shared habitat requirements between closely related 20 individuals are thought to be a cause of obser… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
28
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
2
28
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…That is, having similar heterospecific neighbours results in higher survival rates for the focal individual (Wu et al . ), which may be more important for performance differences and competitive exclusion than niche differences. In sum, present and past analyses indicate that heterospecific negative interactions are far weaker in this forest and that the strong negative intra‐specific interactions affiliated with genetic relatedness likely play a dominant role in regulating populations and, therefore, promoting coexistence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…That is, having similar heterospecific neighbours results in higher survival rates for the focal individual (Wu et al . ), which may be more important for performance differences and competitive exclusion than niche differences. In sum, present and past analyses indicate that heterospecific negative interactions are far weaker in this forest and that the strong negative intra‐specific interactions affiliated with genetic relatedness likely play a dominant role in regulating populations and, therefore, promoting coexistence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…; Wu et al . ). Indeed, in perhaps the most extensive study to date scaling heterospecific neighbourhood similarity by functional trait data (Kunstler et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In our study, the model with variable neighbourhood radius was the most likely model (Appendix S4), supporting this expectation. A fixed radius (based on AIC of candidate models) has often been used to calculate conspecific, heterospecific and phylogenetic neighbourhood effects, with little attention on effects of varying neighbourhood radii Piao et al 2013;Johnson et al 2014;Lin et al 2014;Lu et al 2015;Zhu et al 2015b;Wu et al 2016). However, different neighbourhood radii could result in different density-dependent effect sizes or sign, and thus influence the comparison of density-dependent effects within and among studies Zhu et al 2015b).…”
Section: Interspecific Variation In the Effect Of Neighbourhood Variamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Spatial scale appears to influence detectability of topographic effects; we could only detect significant spatial variation in topographic effects at the standard quadrat scale (Table 2). In recent years, researchers have often modelled tree survival and then analysed the effects of biotic and abiotic factors and mechanisms of species co-existence only at the individual scale (Queenborough et al 2009;Bai et al 2012;Lin et al 2012Lin et al , 2014Wang et al 2012;Piao et al 2013;Johnson et al 2014;Lu et al 2015;Zhu et al 2015b;Wu et al 2016). As the spatial autocorrelation among the response variables increased, the number of topographic variables whose effect significantly varied over space increased (Table 2) in this study, so it seems that the spatial variation in the effect of topography on survival may be scale-dependent, suggesting that spatial scale should not be ignored when analysing the relative importance of topographic factors on survival.…”
Section: Spatial Variation In the Effect Of Topographic Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Susceptibility to conspecific density may be influenced by each species-specific life-history traits, such as shade tolerance, resistance to herbivores (Kobe & Vriesendorp, 2011) or high additive genetic diversity in genes associated with immune responses (Marden et al, 2017). Other factors like soil nutrients (LaManna, Walton, Turner & Myers, 2016), diversity and abundance of soil pathogens (Bagchi et al, 2010), habitat heterogeneity, interspecific competition, and heterospecific neighborhoods (Du et al, 2017;Wu et al, 2016;Zhu et al, 2015) could also affect a species tolerance to high conspecific densities. Hence, CNDD will only regulate diversity when a species self-regulation is stronger relative to the regulating effects of the environment or its interspecific interactions (LaManna et al, 2017).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%