1997
DOI: 10.21236/ada330618
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Relative 'Importance' of Life-History Stages to Population Growth: Prospective and Retrospective Analyses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
164
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(166 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
164
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We used a two-way life table response experiment (LTRE) with sheep density treatment and year as fixed effects to quantify the contribution of different matrix elements to the differences in k between populations and years (Horvitz et al 1997;Caswell 2001). To investigate if some life history components contributed consistently to the variation in k between years, we calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients between LTRE contributions to the year effect and deviations of k from k of the overall mean matrix.…”
Section: Statistical Analyses and Transition Matrix Modellingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used a two-way life table response experiment (LTRE) with sheep density treatment and year as fixed effects to quantify the contribution of different matrix elements to the differences in k between populations and years (Horvitz et al 1997;Caswell 2001). To investigate if some life history components contributed consistently to the variation in k between years, we calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients between LTRE contributions to the year effect and deviations of k from k of the overall mean matrix.…”
Section: Statistical Analyses and Transition Matrix Modellingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Elasticities can be used for comparison of life history strategies within and among taxa (de Kroon et al 2000) and for assessing the relative contribution of fitness components to variation in k (van Tienderen 1995; Horvitz et al 1997). We used the acronym ''k PM '' to identify the estimate of k using the projection matrix.…”
Section: Contributions Of Demographic Parameters To K and Variabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We did not have an estimate of juvenile survival so we used an estimate from a study of California We assessed the sensitivity of k to individual fitness components by calculating the elasticityĂȘ Ă° Þ of model parameters (Benton and Grant 1996;Caswell 2001). The relative sensitivity ofk PM to variation in fitness components (i.e., R, u, and juvenile survival) depends on both theĂȘ and the temporal variation of the fitness components (Horvitz et al 1997;Gaillard et al 2000). For example, u may have high elasticity but have less importance in determining annual changes in k than components with lower elasticity yet greater temporal variability.…”
Section: Contributions Of Demographic Parameters To K and Variabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One may think that the low contribution of fecundity to the variation in k is expected in perennial plants whose demography is predicted to be less sensitive to changes in fecundity by sensitivity and elasticity analysis (Silvertown et al 1996;Franco and Silvertown 2004). However, the relative contribution of fecundity depends not only on the pattern of sensitivity but also on that of variability of demographic rates (Horvitz et al 1997;Caswell 2000), and recent studies using retrospective LTRE analysis gave variable results among perennials. In an understory herb Heliconia acuminata, reduced k in small experimentally fragmented forests compared to continuous forests was attributable to reduction both in fecundity and in plant growth (Bruna and Oli 2005), while in a rare monocarpic herb Centaurea corymbosa, FrĂ©ville et al (2004) found a predominant effect of fecundity on spatial and temporal (Bruna 2002;Aguilar et al 2006), and frequently suggested that these changes threaten the persistence of populations (Jennersten 1988;KĂ©ry et al 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas the lack of sufficient data tends to result in substituting spatial variation for temporal variation in demographic models (e.g., Silva et al 1991), we do not generally know whether plant demography responds similarly to these two types of environmental variability (Horvitz et al 1997;Jongejans and de Kroon 2005). A better understanding will probably come from studies that investigate long-term dynamics of multiple populations by analyzing both temporal and spatial variations in demography.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%