The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
EARLY EMERGENCE ENHANCES PLANT FITNESS: A PHYLOGENETICALLY CONTROLLED META-ANALYSIS
Abstract
The time at which a seedling emerges can determine its future success as a plant. Despite the large number of studies that have examined the effect of emergence time on different components of plant fitness (survival, growth, and/or fecundity), the potential evolutionary response to selection on seedling emergence date is still poorly known. In this study, we review 55 of those studies by a random-effects meta-analysis, considering the phylogenetic relatedness among taxa. We test the following hypotheses: (1) early emergence increases seedling survival, growth, and fecundity, (2) early emergence is more advantageous to large-seeded species than to small-seeded ones, as the former can compensate for the lower number of seeds by increasing seedling survival, (3) perennial plants benefit more than annuals from early emergence, as the iteroparity of the former allows them to risk seedling emergence to the best conditions each year, whereas the semelparity of the latter forces them to spread the risk of emergence over time, and (4) the effect of emergence time may depend upon the experimental conditions (field vs. controlled experiments in a greenhouse or laboratory). Our results show that early emergence differentially affects components of plant fitness, with no effect on seedling survival but large benefits to seedling growth and fecundity. Such effects vary depending upon intrinsic factors like seed size or life-form, and also upon methodology (census time and experimental conditions). Large-seeded species gain from emerging early by growing more during their first growing seasons, although they survive and reproduce similarly to small-seeded species. The survival benefit of early emergence is greater in perennial than in annual species, thus supporting hypothesis 3. The relationship between emergence time and seedling growth appears to be stronger under controlled conditions than in the field, probably as a result of the unlimited nutrient and water resources of the former. In field conditions, in contrast, limited resources probably decelerate the growth of early seedlings, precluding the detection of differences between these and late seedlings.
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
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Cited by
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology
Koricheva, J., & Gurevitch, J. (2014) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12224 · Cited by 460
Nonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses
Noble, D. W. A., Lagisz, M., O'dea, R. E., & Nakagawa, S. (2017) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14031 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Verdú, M., & Traveset, A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1385-1394
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2137186371
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.60
- 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: EARLY EMERGENCE ENHANCES PLANT FITNESS: A PHYLOGENETICALLY CONTROLLED META-ANALYSIS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/04-1647
- The paper
- Verdú, M., & Traveset, A. (2005). EARLY EMERGENCE ENHANCES PLANT FITNESS: A PHYLOGENETICALLY CONTROLLED META-ANALYSIS. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1647
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.