Cited by 101Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesForest ecology and managementPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics

Scales of aboveground and below‐ground competition in a semi‐arid woodland detected from spatial pattern

Martens, Scott N., Breshears, David D., Meyer, Clifton W., Barnes, Fairley J.·1997·Journal of Vegetation Science

Abstract

Semi‐arid woodlands are two‐phase mosaics of canopy and inter‐canopy patches. We hypothesized that both aboveground competition (within canopy patches), and below‐ground competition (between canopy patches), would be important structuring processes in these communities. We investigated the spatial pattern of trees in aPinus edulis‐Juniperus monospermawoodland in New Mexico using Ripley'sK‐function. We found strong aggregation of trees at scales of 2 to 4 m, which indicates the scale of canopy patches. Canopy patches were composed of individuals of both species. Crown centers of both species were always less aggregated than stem centers at scales less than canopy patch size, indicating morphological plasticity of competing crowns. In the smallest size classes of both species, aggregation was most intense, and occurred over a larger range of scales; aggregation decreased with increasing size as is consistent with density‐dependent mortality from intraspecific competition. Within canopy patches, younger trees were associated with older trees of the other species. At scales larger than canopy patches, younger trees showed repulsion from older conspecifics, indicating below‐ground competition. Hence, intraspecific competition was stronger than interspecific competition, probably because the species differ in rooting depth. Woodland dynamics depend on the scale and composition of canopy patches, aggregated seed deposition and facilitation, above‐ and below‐ground competition, and t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3237370

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Browse is especially sensitive to intraspecific competition, whether due to competition for light, water, or nutrients.

    “This suggests that browse is especially sensitive to intraspecific competition, whether due to competition for light, water (particularly during the dry season) or nutrients (Martens et al. 1997).”

    From A Food Web Model of the Serengeti: Stability, Dynamics and Indirect Effects (2026) · cites this paper as Martens et al. 1997

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 64 · Cited by 101

Authors
Martens, S. N., Breshears, D. D., Meyer, C. W., & Barnes, F. J.
Affiliations
Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Martens, Scott N.
Venue
Journal of Vegetation Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-10
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
655-664
ISSN
  • 1100-9233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1654-1103
OpenAlex
W2072215028
Cited by
101
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Vegetation Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Keywords
aboveground competition, belowground competition, semi-arid forests, Pinus edulis, Juniperus monosperma, spatial patterns, tree aggregation, interspecific competition, intraspecific competition, density-dependent mortality, root depth, facilitation, seed deposition, Ripley's K function

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