Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
83
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 91 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
2
83
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, consistent with other reviews (Gibson, Espeland, Wagner, & Nelson, 2016), the vast majority of studies involved wild-collected plants or seeds, and thus maternal environment effects almost certainly affected some results (Bischoff & Müller-Schärer, 2010;Espeland, Perkins, Johnson, & Horning, 2016). Though we did not conduct phylogenetic corrections for relatedness among taxa (Harvey & Pagel, 1991;de Bello et al, 2015), our results were essentially identical for signatures 1-3 when we averaged results across species (scores differed by +3%, −1%, and +8%, respectively), suggesting that our lack of phylogenetic corrections are not unduly affecting our results. However, understanding patterns of intraspecific variation across the full range of the species native to the Great Basin is pertinent because it has been common (and for some species, ubiquitous) to utilize sources of native species originating from outside the Great Basin to use for restoration within the Great Basin (Jones & Larson, 2005).…”
Section: Total (592)supporting
confidence: 68%
“…For example, consistent with other reviews (Gibson, Espeland, Wagner, & Nelson, 2016), the vast majority of studies involved wild-collected plants or seeds, and thus maternal environment effects almost certainly affected some results (Bischoff & Müller-Schärer, 2010;Espeland, Perkins, Johnson, & Horning, 2016). Though we did not conduct phylogenetic corrections for relatedness among taxa (Harvey & Pagel, 1991;de Bello et al, 2015), our results were essentially identical for signatures 1-3 when we averaged results across species (scores differed by +3%, −1%, and +8%, respectively), suggesting that our lack of phylogenetic corrections are not unduly affecting our results. However, understanding patterns of intraspecific variation across the full range of the species native to the Great Basin is pertinent because it has been common (and for some species, ubiquitous) to utilize sources of native species originating from outside the Great Basin to use for restoration within the Great Basin (Jones & Larson, 2005).…”
Section: Total (592)supporting
confidence: 68%
“…Therefore, we chose to adhere to the results without phylogenetic correction in order to cover the full set of documented species. Other studies also indicate that it is not always necessary to apply phylogenetic corrections in trait analyses (Mattila et al 2006(Mattila et al , 2011Päivinen et al 2005;Pavoine et al 2014;Bartonova et al 2014;Leingärtner et al 2014;De Bello et al 2015). This appears especially true for both this and the abovementioned studies that (partly) involve ecologically based traits, such as our climatic niche traits, which are less likely to be evolutionary conserved than morphological traits, such as body size.…”
Section: Phylogenetic Componentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…; de Bello et al . ). However, phylogenetic relatedness between species is being increasingly considered not only as a bias to be corrected, but as an evolutionary signal allowing description of patterns and inference of processes at different evolutionary scales (Cavender‐Bares et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%