Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are Plant Populations Seed Limited? A Critique and Meta‐Analysis of Seed Addition Experiments

Clark, C. J., Poulsen, J. R., Levey, D. J., Osenberg, C. W.·2007·The American Naturalist

Abstract

We examine the relative importance of processes that underlie plant population abundance and distribution. Two opposing views dominate the field. One posits that the ability to establish at a site is determined by the availability of suitable microsites (establishment limitation), while the second asserts that recruitment is limited by the availability of seeds (seed limitation). An underlying problem is that establishment and seed limitation are typically viewed as mutually exclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis of seed addition experiments to assess the relative strength of establishment and seed limitation to seedling recruitment. We asked (1) To what degree are populations seed and establishment limited? (2) Under what conditions (e.g., habitats and life-history traits) are species more or less limited by each? (3) How can seed addition studies be better designed to enhance our understanding of plant recruitment? We found that, in keeping with previous studies, most species are seed limited. However, the effects of seed addition are typically small, and most added seeds fail to recruit to the seedling stage. As a result, establishment limitation is stronger than seed limitation. Seed limitation was greater for large-seeded species, species in disturbed microsites, and species with relatively short-lived seed banks. Most seed addition experiments cannot assess the relationship between number of seeds added and number of subsequent recruits. This shortcoming can be overcome by increasing the number and range of seed addition treatments.

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 · 10.1086/518565

Cites

65 of 65 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 65 references

Cited by

See all 494

Metadata

Authors
Clark, C. J., Poulsen, J. R., Levey, D. J., & Osenberg, C. W.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
2007-07
Volume
170
Issue
1
Pages
128-142
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2121622946
Cited by
494
References
65
FWCI
20.17
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: Are Plant Populations Seed Limited? A Critique and Meta‐Analysis of Seed Addition Experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/518565
The paper
Clark, C. J., Poulsen, J. R., Levey, D. J., & Osenberg, C. W. (2007). Are Plant Populations Seed Limited? A Critique and Meta‐Analysis of Seed Addition Experiments. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/518565

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.