The DOI matches its Crossref record; 138 of the 138 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Moving forward on facilitation research: response to changing environments and effects on the diversity, functioning and evolution of plant communities
Open accessAbstract
Once seen as anomalous, facilitative interactions among plants and their importance for community structure and functioning are now widely recognized. The growing body of modelling, descriptive and experimental studies on facilitation covers a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic systems throughout the globe. However, the lack of a general body of theory linking facilitation among different types of organisms and biomes and their responses to environmental changes prevents further advances in our knowledge regarding the evolutionary and ecological implications of facilitation in plant communities. Moreover, insights gathered from alternative lines of inquiry may substantially improve our understanding of facilitation, but these have been largely neglected thus far. Despite over 15 years of research and debate on this topic, there is no consensus on the degree to which plant–plant interactions change predictably along environmental gradients (i.e. the stress‐gradient hypothesis), and this hinders our ability to predict how plant–plant interactions may affect the response of plant communities to ongoing global environmental change. The existing controversies regarding the response of plant–plant interactions across environmental gradients can be reconciled when clearly considering and determining the species‐specificity of the response, the functional or individual stress type, and the scale of interest (pairwise interactions or community‐level response). Here, we introduce a theoretical framework to do this, supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence. We also discuss current gaps in our knowledge regarding how plant–plant interactions change along environmental gradients. These include the existence of thresholds in the amount of species‐specific stress that a benefactor can alleviate, the linearity or non‐linearity of the response of pairwise interactions across distance from the ecological optimum of the beneficiary, and the need to explore further how frequent interactions among multiple species are and how they change across different environments. We review the latest advances in these topics and provide new approaches to fill current gaps in our knowledge. We also apply our theoretical framework to advance our knowledge on the evolutionary aspects of plant facilitation, and the relative importance of facilitation, in comparison with other ecological processes, for maintaining ecosystem structure, functioning and dynamics. We build links between these topics and related fields, such as ecological restoration, woody encroachment, invasion ecology, ecological modelling and biodiversity–ecosystem‐functioning relationships. By identifying commonalities and insights from alternative lines of research, we further advance our understanding of facilitation and provide testable hypotheses regarding the role of (positive) biotic interactions in the maintenance of biodiversity and the response of ecological communities to ongoing environmental changes.
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
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.494 · Cited by 9,086
Phylogenies and Community Ecology
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A., & Donoghue, M. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448 · Cited by 4,609
Positive interactions in communities
Bertness, M. D., & Callaway, R. (1994) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(94)90088-4 · Cited by 3,823
Lavorel, S., & Garnier, E. (2002) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x · Cited by 3,452
Gauze, G. F. (1934) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.4489 · Cited by 3,285
Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory
Bruno, J. F., Stachowicz, J. J., & Bertness, M. D. (2003) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(02)00045-9 · Cited by 2,902
Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches
Chase, J. M., & Leibold, M. A. (2003) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226101811.001.0001 · Cited by 1,883
Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains
Whittaker, R. H. (1956) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1943577 · Cited by 1,869
Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future
Brooker, R. W., Maestre, F. T., Callaway, R. M., Lortie, C. L., Cavieres, L. A., Kunstler, G., Liancourt, P., Tielbörger, K., Travis, J. M. J., Anthelme, F., et al. (2008) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01295.x · Cited by 1,815
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Soliveres, S., Smit, C., & Maestre, F. T.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-04-29
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 297-313
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W1581202351
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 138
- FWCI
- 4.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Moving forward on facilitation research: response to changing environments and effects on the diversity, functioning and evolution of plant communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/brv.12110
- The paper
- Soliveres, S., Smit, C., & Maestre, F. T. (2015). Moving forward on facilitation research: response to changing environments and effects on the diversity, functioning and evolution of plant communities. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12110
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.