The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Intensity of Competition Versus its Importance: An Overlooked Distinction and Some Implications
Abstract
The intensity of competition is a physiological concept, related directly to the well-being of individual organisms but only indirectly and conditionally to their fitness, and even more indirectly to the evolution of populations and the structure of communities. The importance of competition is primarily an ecological and evolutionary concept, related directly to the ecology and fitness of individuals but only indirectly to their physiological states. The intensity of competition is not necessarily correlated with the intensities of predation, disturbance, abiotic stress, or other ecological processes. The importance of competition is necessarily relative to the importances of other processes. Intensity refers primarily to the process of present competition, whereas importance refers primarily to the products of past competition. The distinction between the intensity and the importance of competition clarifies two long-standing ecological debates. Some ecologists have proposed that competition is greater in more stressful habitats, others the opposite, and still others that no such relationship exists. Evidence cited to refute or support these positions often confuses intensity and importance. Distinguishing between them focuses questions more sharply and indicates what sorts of new evidence should be sought. The more widely known debate over the prevalence of competition as an agent of community structure is a debate about the importance of competition, but evidence about the intensity of competition has often been used by both sides. We argue that intensity and importance need not be correlated, and so measurements of the intensity of competition are not directly relevant to this debate. This distinction also generates testable hypotheses and suggests directions for research. For example, we hypothesize that competition can be unimportant even if it is very intense: no such hypothesis is possible unless importance is distinguished from intensity. We discuss the application of these ideas to methods and theories used to study competition, ecological communities, and the evolution of competitive ability. We advocate a research approach that presumes multiple, interacting causes, including competition, affecting community structure, and we show how the distinction between intensity and importance helps to make this feasible.
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
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 · Cited by 7,770
Grime, J. P. (1977) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283244 · Cited by 5,754
Cited by
Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman
CRAINE, J. M. (2005) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01043.x · Cited by 634
Root competition: beyond resource depletion
SCHENK, H. J. (2006) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01124.x · Cited by 587
Taylor, D. R., Aarssen, L. W., & Loehle, C. (1990) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3545432 · Cited by 470
Hersteinsson, P., & MacDonald, D. W. (1992) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3545168 · Cited by 370
Fridley, J. D. (2002) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-002-0965-x · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Welden, C. W., & Slauson, W. L.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Review of Biology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1986-03
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-44
- ISSN
- 0033-5770 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-7718
- OpenAlex
- W2090906467
- Cited by
- 442
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.62
- 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: The Intensity of Competition Versus its Importance: An Overlooked Distinction and Some Implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/414724
- The paper
- Welden, C. W., & Slauson, W. L. (1986). The Intensity of Competition Versus its Importance: An Overlooked Distinction and Some Implications. The Quarterly Review of Biology. https://doi.org/10.1086/414724
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.