Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade‐off: a sowing experiment

Turnbull, Lindsay A., Rees, Mark, Crawley, Michael J.·1999·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: 1 A seed‐addition experiment using seven co‐occurring annual plant species with a range of seed masses was carried out in a limestone grassland in South Wales. 2 If seedlings compete for establishment sites, then large seed size may confer enhanced competitive ability. However, the simple reciprocal relationship found between seed mass and per capita seed output showed that species producing larger seeds suffer reduced fecundity. Seed size may therefore act as a surrogate in a competition/colonization trade‐off. 3 Equal numbers of seeds of all species were sown in a mixture over a range of densities. As sowing density increases, all species should reach a higher proportion of the available microsites. If large‐seeded species are the best competitors they are expected to win all the sites they reach, and hence to occupy an increasing proportion of sites as sowing density increases. 4 The three species with the largest seeds made up 49% of individuals at low‐density sown plots but 83% of individuals in high‐density sown plots. In addition, seed mass and plant density were not correlated in unsown plots, but were strongly correlated in high‐density sown plots. However, all small‐seeded species maintained a presence in sown plots. 5 Although species were sown at random with respect to one another, individuals were up to five times more likely than expected to have a conspecific as a nearest neighbour. This could be caused by interspecific competition and/or by environmental heterogeneity that favours different species in different patches. 6 The results suggest that seedlings do compete for establishment sites and that large‐seeded species generally win when in direct competition. In unsown areas small‐seeded species win many sites by forfeit (because large‐seeded species are strongly recruitment limited) but there may be a restricted subset of potential sites for which they are the best competitors and which they can win outright.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00405.x

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 512

Metadata

Authors
Turnbull, L. A., Rees, M., & Crawley, M. J.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-10
Volume
87
Issue
5
Pages
899-912
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W1997793565
Cited by
512
References
33
FWCI
12.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade‐off: a sowing experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00405.x
The paper
Turnbull, L. A., Rees, M., & Crawley, M. J. (1999). Seed mass and the competition/colonization trade‐off: a sowing experiment. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00405.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.