The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consistency of plant species and trait responses to grazing along a productivity gradient: a multi‐site analysis
Abstract
Summary: Studies of the responses of communities to land use or climate change at a functional rather than species level have used species traits as response or effect variables to enable generalization between different communities and biogeographical regions. Data from 10 published experiments on semi‐natural and agricultural grasslands in Scotland, and from published information on plant traits, were used to determine whether (a) species and trait attributes behave consistently with respect to changing grazing intensity at sites of different productivity and (b) whether species and attribute responses to grazing were affected by site productivity. Only 9 out of 22 species common enough to show a consistent response to grazing did so. For example, Deschampsia flexuosa and Molinia caerulea declined when grazing intensity increased, whilst Anthoxanthum odouratum and Cerastium fontanum increased. A similar proportion (12/29) of traits behaved consistently between studies. Increased grazing intensity was accompanied by an increase in species with a ruderal strategy, an annual life history, seasonal regeneration by seed, flowering and seed dispersal early in the season, rosette habit, higher requirement for light and a lower minimum height. The response of five species was modified by site productivity. In four cases, the effect was to modulate the rate of response to grazing change. In contrast, Nardus stricta increased with grazing at low productivity sites, but decreased at high productivity sites. Many more traits (22), including attributes related to life history, life form, and vegetative and sexual reproduction, showed a response to grazing modulated by productivity. Eight of these changed in a complex manner, akin to that of N. stricta. The response of some species and traits to grazing appears predictable. However, for some species and many traits either the rate or the direction of response is controlled by the productivity of the vegetation.
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
Baltosser, W. H., & Zar, J. H. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265725 · Cited by 35,166
ter Braak, C. J. F., & Šmilauer, P. (2002) · Cited by 9,306
Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes
Grime, J. P. (1979) · Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) · Cited by 5,371
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 1×
“The metric chosen for analysis of the response of species and attributes was the rate of change of abundance with time relative to the control (in effect a response ratio, Hedges et al. 1999).”
MethodA handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide
Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., Díaz, S., Buchmann, N., Gurvich, D. E., Reich, P. B., Steege, H. T., Morgan, H. D., Heijden, M. G. A. V. D., et al. (2003) · Australian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1071/bt02124 · Cited by 4,079
Lavorel, S., & Garnier, E. (2002) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x · Cited by 3,452
ter Braak, C., & Šmilauer, P. (2002) · Cited by 2,496
A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme
Westoby, M. (1998) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1004327224729 · Cited by 1,925 · cited 1×
“…is important for vegetation change, as regenerative traits are not generally correlated with vegetative ones (Grime 1979; Grime et al. 1997; Westoby 1998; Lavorel & Garnier 903 Plant species and trait responses to grazing © 2004 British Ecological Society, Journal of Ecology, 92,…”
BackgroundGrime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G., & Hunt, R. (1988) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1094-7 · Cited by 1,738
Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species
Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J., & Hunt, R. (1989) · Cited by 1,582
Cited by
Functional- and abundance-based mechanisms explain diversity loss due to N fertilization
Suding, K. N., Collins, S. L., Gough, L., Clark, C., Cleland, E. E., Gross, K. L., Milchunas, D. G., & Pennings, S. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0408648102 · Cited by 1,053
Herbivore impact on grassland plant diversity depends on habitat productivity and herbivore size
Bakker, E. S., Ritchie, M. E., Olff, H., Milchunas, D. G., & Knops, J. M. H. (2006) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00925.x · Cited by 545
Sampling plant functional traits: What proportion of the species need to be measured?
Pakeman, R. J., & Quested, H. M. (2007) · Applied Vegetation Science · doi:10.1111/j.1654-109x.2007.tb00507.x · Cited by 289
Self-citationTrait‐based ecology of terrestrial arthropods
Wong, M. K. L., Guénard, B., & Lewis, O. T. (2019) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12488 · Cited by 258
Dively, G. P. (2005) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/0046-225x(2005)034[1267:iotvcl]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- PAKEMAN, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-09-16
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 893-905
- ISSN
- 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2745
- OpenAlex
- W1979453098
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 8.40
- 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: Consistency of plant species and trait responses to grazing along a productivity gradient: a multi‐site analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00928.x
- The paper
- PAKEMAN, R. J. (2004). Consistency of plant species and trait responses to grazing along a productivity gradient: a multi‐site analysis. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-0477.2004.00928.x
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.
