Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits

Goldberg, Deborah E.·1996·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Although the relationship between individual plant traits and competitive success in communities is an essential component of comprehensive models of the role of competition in structuring plant communities, three obstacles have stymied efforts to empirically examine such relationships. First, definitions of competitive ability are often inconsistent among bodies of theory and between theoretical predictions and empirical research. Much of the theoretical literature is for populations and often at equilibrium, while experimental work has been largely on individuals and short term. This situation is likely to continue, except for a few model systems, and therefore it is critical that individual-level surrogates for population level phenomena be found. I suggest that competitive response of seedlings to established vegetation may be an effective surrogate for estimating competitive success of populations at equilibrium and that competitive response of individuals with more similar-sized neighbours may be an effective surrogate for competitive success of populations earlier in succession or in non-equilibrium systems. Second, competitive ability may be contingent on many factors, such that it may not be an identifiable characteristic of any particular taxon and thus no broadly applicable relationships between traits and competitive ability may exist. However, a literature survey shows that both competitive response and competitive effect are generally, but not always, consistent regardless of identity of competing species, making the search for relationships with traits reasonable, at least within environments. Among environments, both competitive effect and competitive response are consistent in only about half the studies, making it unreasonable to assume a priori that competitive hierarchies will be similar under different conditions. The third obstacle is logistical; competitive ability is necessarily measured experimentally, and preferably in the field, making it difficult to obtain sufficient sample sizes (numbers of taxa) for rigorous analysis of relationships with traits. I suggest several simplifying assumptions and experimental approaches that could enable much more efficient assaying of competitive abilities of many species.

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 · 10.1098/rstb.1996.0121

Cites

58 of 58 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 58 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Goldberg, D. E.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
1996-09-30
Volume
351
Issue
1345
Pages
1377-1385
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2103408435
Cited by
295
References
58
FWCI
4.79
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: Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1996.0121
The paper
Goldberg, D. E. (1996). Competitive ability: definitions, contingency and correlated traits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0121

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.