The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Competition and Coexistence in a North Carolina Grassland: II. The Effects of the Experimental Removal of Species
Abstract
(1) Species were removed singly (by hand) or in groups (by herbicide or soil sterilization) in a mown field. The vegetation of treated and control quadrats was assessed before and after the removals by measuring the cover of each species. (2) In all cases total cover returned to its original value within a year, although the species composition remained different. (3) The effects of the removals of single species upon the abundance of the other species were small, accounting for an average of only 7% of the variance. Fourteen of the seventy-two pairwise effects tested were significant. Interactions between the different pairs of species did not differ greatly in magnitude. The results of this experiment do not support the hypothesis that this community is divided into well-defined groups of competing species (guilds). A previous study provided evidence for the division of the community into temporal guilds. But within each temporal guild the species are characterized by diffuse competition. (4) Interactions between pairs of species were in general non-reciprocal. (5) Some interactions were found among three or more species that were not predictable from interactions of pairs of the constituent species. Two species with vigorous vegetative spread pre-empted space from competitors, and there were several significant negative responses to species removals. (6) No divisions of the community along taxonomic or morphological lines were found. However, the temporal guilds correspond to the distribution of the C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathway in the grass species. (7) The spatial patterning of the community showed no relationship to the responses to removals.
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
Cited by
Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits
MCGILL, B., ENQUIST, B., WEIHER, E., & WESTOBY, M. (2006) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.02.002 · Cited by 4,631
Community assembly and invasion: An experimental test of neutral versus niche processes
Fargione, J., Brown, C. S., & Tilman, D. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1033107100 · Cited by 855
Goldberg, D. E., & Barton, A. M. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285357 · Cited by 747
Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., Barker, G. M., Yeates, G. W., Nicholson, K. S., Bardgett, R. D., Watson, R. N., & Ghani, A. (1999) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069[0535:pripgv]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 537
Belsky, A. J. (1992) · Journal of Vegetation Science · doi:10.2307/3235679 · Cited by 484
Metadata
- Authors
- Fowler, N.
- Venue
- The Journal of Ecology
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1981-11
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 843
- ISSN
- 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2013399104
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.93
- 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: Competition and Coexistence in a North Carolina Grassland: II. The Effects of the Experimental Removal of Species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2259640
- The paper
- Fowler, N. (1981). Competition and Coexistence in a North Carolina Grassland: II. The Effects of the Experimental Removal of Species. The Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2259640
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.