The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Species distribution models reveal apparent competitive and facilitative effects of a dominant species on the distribution of tundra plants
Abstract
Abiotic factors are considered strong drivers of species distribution and assemblages. Yet these spatial patterns are also influenced by biotic interactions. Accounting for competitors or facilitators may improve both the fit and the predictive power of species distribution models (SDMs). We investigated the influence of a dominant species, Empetrum nigrum ssp. hermaphroditum , on the distribution of 34 subordinate species in the tundra of northern Norway. We related SDM parameters of those subordinate species to their functional traits and their co‐occurrence patterns with E. hermaphroditum across three spatial scales. By combining both approaches, we sought to understand whether these species may be limited by competitive interactions and/or benefit from habitat conditions created by the dominant species. The model fit and predictive power increased for most species when the frequency of occurrence of E. hermaphroditum was included in the SDMs as a predictor. The largest increase was found for species that 1) co‐occur most of the time with E. hermaphroditum , both at large (i.e. 750 m) and small spatial scale (i.e. 2 m) or co‐occur with E. hermaphroditum at large scale but not at small scale and 2) have particularly low or high leaf dry matter content (LDMC). Species that do not co‐occur with E. hermaphroditum at the smallest scale are generally palatable herbaceous species with low LDMC, thus showing a weak ability to tolerate resource depletion that is directly or indirectly induced by E. hermaphroditum . Species with high LDMC, showing a better aptitude to face resource depletion and grazing, are often found in the proximity of E. hermaphroditum . Our results are consistent with previous findings that both competition and facilitation structure plant distribution and assemblages in the Arctic tundra. The functional and co‐occurrence approaches used were complementary and provided a deeper understanding of the observed patterns by refinement of the pool of potential direct and indirect ecological effects of E. hermaphroditum on the distribution of subordinate species. Our correlative study would benefit being complemented by experimental approaches.
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
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination
NAGELKERKE, N. J. D. (1991) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/78.3.691 · Cited by 5,927
(2014) · doi:10.59327/ipcc/ar5-9789291691432 · Cited by 5,217
COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN TREE SPECIES IN NEW ZEALAND'S OLD-GROWTH INDIGENOUS FORESTS
Leathwick, J. R., & Austin, M. P. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2560:cibtsi]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 243
Cited by
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
Self-citationNorberg, A., Abrego, N., Blanchet, F. G., Adler, F. R., Anderson, B. J., Anttila, J., Araújo, M. B., Dallas, T., Dunson, D., Elith, J., et al. (2019) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1370 · Cited by 573
Self-citationGuisan, A., & Rahbek, C. (2011) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02550.x · Cited by 469
Self-citationJoint Species Distribution Modelling: With Applications in R
Ovaskainen, O., & Abrego, N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108591720 · Cited by 394
What we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models
Mod, H. K., Scherrer, D., Luoto, M., & Guisan, A. (2016) · Journal of Vegetation Science · doi:10.1111/jvs.12444 · Cited by 265
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pellissier, L., Anne Bråthen, K., Pottier, J., Randin, C. F., Vittoz, P., Dubuis, A., Yoccoz, N. G., Alm, T., Zimmermann, N. E., & Guisan, A.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-11-16
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1004-1014
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W1979963867
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 9.17
- 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: Species distribution models reveal apparent competitive and facilitative effects of a dominant species on the distribution of tundra plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06386.x
- The paper
- Pellissier, L., Anne Bråthen, K., Pottier, J., Randin, C. F., Vittoz, P., Dubuis, A., Yoccoz, N. G., Alm, T., Zimmermann, N. E., & Guisan, A. (2010). Species distribution models reveal apparent competitive and facilitative effects of a dominant species on the distribution of tundra plants. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06386.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.