2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The return of the variance: intraspecific variability in community ecology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

59
1,607
6
20

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,400 publications
(1,761 citation statements)
references
References 88 publications
59
1,607
6
20
Order By: Relevance
“…Building on MacArthur and Levins' (1967) findings that the relative importance of intra‐ and interspecific phenotypic variation is a key parameter of species coexistence, these variance ratios test for internal and environmental filtering of a given community at different spatial and organizational scales (e.g., individual, species, whole community) (Violle et al. 2012). For each community (plot), we calculated three T ‐statistics values (Violle et al.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Building on MacArthur and Levins' (1967) findings that the relative importance of intra‐ and interspecific phenotypic variation is a key parameter of species coexistence, these variance ratios test for internal and environmental filtering of a given community at different spatial and organizational scales (e.g., individual, species, whole community) (Violle et al. 2012). For each community (plot), we calculated three T ‐statistics values (Violle et al.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each community (plot), we calculated three T ‐statistics values (Violle et al. 2012) using the cati R package (function Tstats in cati). If A and B are two different levels of inclusiveness (i: individual, p: population, c: community, r: region) and σAB2 is the variation of A within B , then:…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Functional traits can be assessed at different levels of biological resolution, from functional groups (e.g., legumes) to species-level means (e.g., average N 2 -fixation rate), to, at the finest scale, intraspecific variation (e.g., individual N 2 -fixation rates). The appropriate scale of analysis depends on the importance of individual variability for the ecosystem process of interest [7,8].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, intraspecific morphological variations of some species also seem to have a key role in their occupation and survival over time in a particular habitat type (Violle et al, 2012). Considering the ecomorphological paradigm, intraspecific morphological variations can result in subtle niche differences among the individuals, favoring the adaptation of some fish species according to changes in environmental conditions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%