The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing plants and connecting traits
Abstract
The diversity of plant life histories provides a wealth of raw material for comparative studies on evolution and ecology. The two fundamental questions for any comparative study are: which traits are correlated with one another, and are these correlations the result of common descent or convergent evolution? Phylogeny should therefore be explicitly included in any comparative analysis that is concerned with the causes of correlation between traits, even when the principal research question is a purely ecological one. In illustration, the method of phylogenetically independent contrasts (PIC) is used to test two longstanding hypotheses that have not been satisfactorily tested before. In the first example we find that annuals and species of early succession have greater reproductive allocation than perennials and species of later succession. In the second example we show that the apparency hypothesis of chemical defence is supported by a positive correlation between woodiness and the frequency of tannins and by a negative correlation between tannin frequency and alkaloid frequency. Finally, we point out that PIC has a much lower type-I error than cross-species analyses and that this superiority is surprisingly robust to lack of phylogenetic resolution.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies
Ragin, C. C. (2014) · doi:10.1525/9780520957350 · Cited by 2,130
Cited by
Community Assembly, Niche Conservatism, and Adaptive Evolution in Changing Environments
Ackerly, D. D. (2003) · International Journal of Plant Sciences · doi:10.1086/368401 · Cited by 893
Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S., & Jones, M. H. (2001) · Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/s0065-2504(01)32013-5 · Cited by 421
A scale‐dependent framework for trade‐offs, syndromes, and specialization in organismal biology
Agrawal, A. A. (2020) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.2924 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Silvertown, J., & Dodd, M.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1996-09-30
- Volume
- 351
- Issue
- 1345
- Pages
- 1233-1239
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2116926258
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.23
- 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: Comparing plants and connecting traits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1996.0106
- The paper
- Silvertown, J., & Dodd, M. (1996). Comparing plants and connecting traits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0106
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.