Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 412

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does size matter for dispersal distance?

Open access
Jenkins, David G., Brescacin, Camille R., Duxbury, Craig V., Elliott, Jennifer A., Evans, Jennafer A., Grablow, Katherine R., Hillegass, Melissa, Lyon, Boyd N., Metzger, Genevieve A., Olandese, Michelle L., Pepe, Diana, Silvers, Greg A., Suresch, Hiliary N., Thompson, Tracy N., Trexler, Christina M., Williams, Graham E., Williams, Natalie C., Williams, Sara E.·2007·Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim The aim of this study is to answer the questions: (1) do small organisms disperse farther than large, or vice versa; and (2) does the observed pattern differ for passive and active dispersers? These questions are central to several themes in biogeography (including microbial biogeography), macroecology, metacommunity ecology and conservation biology. Location The meta‐analysis was conducted using published data collected worldwide. Methods We collected and analysed 795 data values in the peer‐reviewed literature for direct observations of both maximal dispersal distance and mass of the dispersing organisms (e.g. seeds, not trees). Analysed taxa ranged in size from bacteria to whales. We applied macroecology analyses based on null models (using Monte Carlo randomizations) to test patterns relative to specific hypotheses. Results Collected dispersal distance and mass data spanned 9 and 21 orders of magnitude, respectively. Active dispersers dispersed significantly farther (P < 0.001) and were significantly greater in mass (P < 0.001) than passive dispersers. Overall, size matters: larger active dispersers attained greater maximum observed dispersal distances than smaller active dispersers. In contrast, passive‐disperser distances were random with respect to propagule mass, but not uniformly random, in part due to sparse data available for tiny propagules. Conclusions Size is important to maximal dispersal distance for active dispersers, but not for passive dispersers. Claims that microbes disperse widely cannot be tested by current data based on direct observations of dispersal: indirect approaches will need to be applied. Distance–mass relationships should contribute to a resolution of neutral and niche‐based metacommunity theories by helping scale expectations for dispersal limitation. Also, distance–mass relationships should inform analyses of latitudinal species richness and conservation biology topics such as fragmentation, umbrella species and taxonomic homogenization.

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 · 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00312.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 412

Metadata

Authors
Jenkins, D. G., Brescacin, C. R., Duxbury, C. V., Elliott, J. A., Evans, J. A., Grablow, K. R., Hillegass, M., Lyon, B. N., Metzger, G. A., Olandese, M. L., Pepe, D., Silvers, G. A., Suresch, H. N., Thompson, T. N., Trexler, C. M., Williams, G. E., Williams, N. C., & Williams, S. E.
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-08
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
415-425
ISSN
  • 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-8238
OpenAlex
W2025398831
Cited by
412
References
4
FWCI
15.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Does size matter for dispersal distance? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00312.x
The paper
Jenkins, D. G., Brescacin, C. R., Duxbury, C. V., Elliott, J. A., Evans, J. A., Grablow, K. R., Hillegass, M., Lyon, B. N., Metzger, G. A., Olandese, M. L., Pepe, D., Silvers, G. A., Suresch, H. N., Thompson, T. N., Trexler, C. M., Williams, G. E., Williams, N. C., & Williams, S. E. (2007). Does size matter for dispersal distance? Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00312.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.