The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Field Experiments on Interspecific Competition
Abstract
Rare until recently, field-experimental studies of interspecific competition now number well over 150. Competition was found in 90% of the studies and 76% of their species, indicating its pervasive importance in ecological systems. Exploitative competition and interference competition were apparent mechanisms about equally often. Few experiments showed year-to-year variation in the existence of competition, though more did in its intensity; many were not long-term. The Hairston-Slobodkin-Smith hypothesis concerning variation in the importance of competition between trophic levels was strongly supported for terrestrial and freshwater systems. In particular, producers, and granivores, nectarivores, carnivores, and scavengers taken together, showed more competition than did phytophagous herbivores and filter feeders. In marine systems, virtually no trend was detectable one way or the other. Large heterotrophs competed more than small ones in most comparisons, and other properties possibly deterring predation, such as stinging behavior, seemed also characteristic of species competing frequently. Among terrestrial plants and certain terrestrial animals but not all, experiments carried out in enclosures were more likely to show competition than unenclosed experiments. A greater ecological overlap implied a greater tendency to compete, as determined experimentally, when niche dimensions were food type or microhabitat; the opposite was true for macrohabitat. A substantial number of studies showed asymmetry in their species' response to competition; larger species were significantly more often superior than smaller ones, though a variety of other apparent reasons for asymmetry also existed. The integration of competition theory into field experimentation has only just begun.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme
Westoby, M. (1998) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1004327224729 · Cited by 1,925
The Role of Reinforcement in Speciation: Theory and Data
Servedio, M. R., & Noor, M. A. F. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132412 · Cited by 939
Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory
Hirzel, A. H., & Le Lay, G. (2008) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01524.x · Cited by 873
Ecological Uses of Vertebrate Indicator Species: A Critique
LANDRES, P. B., VERNER, J., & THOMAS, J. W. (1988) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00195.x · Cited by 773
Goldberg, D. E., & Barton, A. M. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285357 · Cited by 747
Metadata
- Authors
- Schoener, T. W.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1983-08
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 240-285
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2064242117
- Cited by
- 2,361
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 84.48
- 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: Field Experiments on Interspecific Competition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284133
- The paper
- Schoener, T. W. (1983). Field Experiments on Interspecific Competition. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284133
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.