Cited by 634Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesEcosystem dynamics and resilience

Reconciling plant strategy theories of Grime and Tilman

CRAINE, JOSEPH M.·2005·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: The theories of Grime and Tilman are ambitious attempts to unify disparate theories regarding the construction of plants, their interaction with the environment and the assembly of communities. After over two decades of parallel research, their ideas have not been reconciled, hindering progress in understanding the functioning of ecosystems. Grime's theories do not adequately incorporate the importance of non‐heterogeneous supplies of nutrients and how these supplies are partitioned over long time scales, are inconsistent regarding the importance of disturbance in nutrient‐limited habitats and need to reconsider the carbon economy of shade‐tolerant plants. Failure to account for differences between aquatic and terrestrial systems in how resource supplies are partitioned led Tilman to develop a shifting set of theories that have become reduced in mechanistic detail over time. The most recent highlighted the reduction of nutrient concentrations in soil solution, although it can no longer be derived from any viable mechanistic model. The slow diffusion of nutrients in soils means that the reduction of average soil solution nutrient concentrations cannot explain competitive exclusion. Although neither theory, nor a union of the two, adequately characterizes the dynamics of terrestrial plant assemblages, the complementarity in their assumptions serve as an important foundation for future theory and research. Reconciling the approaches of Grime and Tilman leads to six scenarios for competition for nutrients and light, with the outcome of each depending on the ability of plants to pre‐empt supplies. Under uniform supplies, pulses or patches, light competition requires leaf area dominance, while nutrient competition requires root length dominance. There are still important basic questions regarding the nature of nutrient supplies that will need to be answered, but recent research brings us closer to a unified set of theories on resource competition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01043.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CRAINE, J. M.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
CRAINE, JOSEPH M.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-07-29
Volume
93
Issue
6
Pages
1041-1052
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2170193083
Cited by
634
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 27
FWCI
22.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Botany and Plant Ecology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
Keywords
plant competition, nutrient competition, light competition, resource partitioning, soil solution nutrients, nutrient diffusion, disturbance, shade-tolerant plants, plant community assembly, competitive exclusion

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