The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatial Dynamics in Model Plant Communities: What Do We Really Know?
Abstract
A variety of models have shown that spatial dynamics and small-scale endogenous heterogeneity (e.g., forest gaps or local resource depletion zones) can change the rate and outcome of competition in communities of plants or other sessile organisms. However, the theory appears complicated and hard to connect to real systems. We synthesize results from three different kinds of models: interacting particle systems, moment equations for spatial point processes, and metapopulation or patch models. Studies using all three frameworks agree that spatial dynamics need not enhance coexistence nor slow down dynamics; their effects depend on the underlying competitive interactions in the community. When similar species would coexist in a nonspatial habitat, endogenous spatial structure inhibits coexistence and slows dynamics. When a dominant species disperses poorly and the weaker species has higher fecundity or better dispersal, competition-colonization trade-offs enhance coexistence. Even when species have equal dispersal and per-generation fecundity, spatial successional niches where the weaker and faster-growing species can rapidly exploit ephemeral local resources can enhance coexistence. When interspecific competition is strong, spatial dynamics reduce founder control at large scales and short dispersal becomes advantageous. We describe a series of empirical tests to detect and distinguish among the suggested scenarios.
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
Cites
Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity
Chesson, P. (2000) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343 · Cited by 6,645
Grime, J. P. (1977) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283244 · Cited by 5,754 · cited 1×
“…than the dominant by allowing it to concentrate its reproductive effort in areas that are temporarily free from interspecific competition; this strategy has variously been called “competition” (Grime 1977), “exploitation” (Bolker and Pacala 1999), or a “successional niche” (Pacala and Rees 1998).”
BackgroundMultispecies Competition in Variable Environments
Chesson, P. (1994) · Theoretical Population Biology · doi:10.1006/tpbi.1994.1013 · Cited by 726
Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities.
Stoll, P., & Prati, D. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0319:iaacii]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 369 · cited 2×
“We know of only one published example of a manipulative experiment designed to test endogenous spatial mechanisms in plant communities (Stoll and Prati 2001), although there are several such tests of bacterial communities, as previously cited (Chao and Levin 1981; Korona et al. 1994; Rainey and…”
Background
Cited by
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297
Self-citationPlant coexistence and the niche
SILVERTOWN, J. (2004) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.003 · Cited by 1,248
Ellison, A. M. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00603.x · Cited by 786
A comparison of methods for the statistical analysis of spatial point patterns in plant ecology
Perry, G. L. W., Miller, B. P., & Enright, N. J. (2006) · Plant Ecology · doi:10.1007/s11258-006-9133-4 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Bolker, B. M., Pacala, S. W., & Neuhauser, C.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 135-148
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W1986477724
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.77
- 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: Spatial Dynamics in Model Plant Communities: What Do We Really Know? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/376575
- The paper
- Bolker, B. M., Pacala, S. W., & Neuhauser, C. (2003). Spatial Dynamics in Model Plant Communities: What Do We Really Know? The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/376575
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.