The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking plant community theory
Abstract
Plant communities have traditionally been viewed as either a random collection of individuals or as organismal entities. For most ecologists however, neither perspective provides a modern comprehensive view of plant communities, but we have yet to formalize the view that we currently hold. Here, we assert that an explicit re‐consideration of formal community theory must incorporate interactions that have recently been prominent in plant ecology, namely facilitation and indirect effects among competitors. These interactions do not suppport the traditional individualistic perspective. We believe that rejecting strict individualistic theory will allow ecologists to better explain variation occurring at different spatial scales, synthesize more general predictive theories of community dynamics, and develop models for community‐level responses to global change. Here, we introduce the concept of the integrated community (IC) which proposes that natural plant communities range from highly individualistic to highly interdependent depending on synergism among: (i) stochastic processes, (ii) the abiotic tolerances of species, (iii) positive and negative interactions among plants, and (iv) indirect interactions within and between trophic levels. All of these processes are well accepted by plant ecologists, but no single theory has sought to integrate these different processes into our concept of communities.
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
Ecological responses to recent climate change.
Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T. J. C., Fromentin, J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Bairlein, F. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/416389a · Cited by 9,975
Cited by
Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses
Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J. M., Rand, T. A., Didham, R. K., Fahrig, L., Batáry, P., Bengtsson, J., Clough, Y., Crist, T. O., Dormann, C. F., et al. (2012) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00216.x · Cited by 2,134
Wisz, M. S., Pottier, J., Kissling, W. D., Pellissier, L., Lenoir, J., Damgaard, C. F., Dormann, C. F., Forchhammer, M. C., Grytnes, J., Guisan, A., et al. (2013) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2012.00235.x · Cited by 1,769
Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research
Didham, R. K., Kapos, V., & Ewers, R. M. (2012) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.20273.x · Cited by 377
How People Domesticated Amazonian Forests
Levis, C., Flores, B. M., Moreira, P. A., Luize, B. G., Alves, R. P., Franco-Moraes, J., Lins, J., Konings, E., Peña-Claros, M., Bongers, F., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2017.00171 · Cited by 331
Biogeography and landscape ecology
Kent, M. (2007) · Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment · doi:10.1177/0309133307079059 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Lortie, C. J., Brooker, R. W., Choler, P., Kikvidze, Z., Michalet, R., Pugnaire, F. I., & Callaway, R. M.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-09-13
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 433-438
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W2114826865
- Cited by
- 652
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.00
- 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: Rethinking plant community theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13250.x
- The paper
- Lortie, C. J., Brooker, R. W., Choler, P., Kikvidze, Z., Michalet, R., Pugnaire, F. I., & Callaway, R. M. (2004). Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13250.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.