Importance: an overlooked concept in plant interaction research
Importance: an overlooked concept in plant interaction research
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01373.x
复制
发表时间：
2008-07-01
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Kikividze, Zaal
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brooker, Rob W.;Kikividze, Zaal
1.已经采取了许多方法来分析植物的相互作用和环境的严重程度之间的关系。围绕这种关系及其对植物策略和性状进化的影响存在相当大的争论。这场辩论通常与两个主要主角的名字联系在一起：Grime和Tilman。然而，由于研究人员往往未能明确区分两个概念--竞争的重要性和激烈性--他们使这一辩论永久化。为了说明这一点，我们讨论了一种新的方法来检查威尔逊提出的跨梯度植物相互作用。我们支持威尔逊的工作的主要推力-改善相互作用指数提供的信息。然而，我们强调我们认为是威尔逊讨论中的一个疏忽：他的新指数可以揭示格里姆-蒂尔曼辩论的建议。我们认为，这是不可能的，因为威尔逊的指数衡量竞争强度（竞争的绝对影响），而格里姆的理论涉及竞争的重要性（竞争的相对影响）。我们通过对Wilson研究数据的重新分析来支持我们的论点，表明竞争重要性、竞争强度、Wilson的新指数和生物量（生产力的替代品）之间的关系既复杂又多变。威尔逊的讨论是忽视竞争重要性和竞争强度之间区别的文献的一部分。我们研究了一些其他著名的研究，证明了这种疏忽和相关的混乱是如何普遍存在的，可能起源于概念的原始来源，并不必要地延续争论。合成.竞争强度和重要性的概念是解决关键生态辩论的核心，但在当代研究中仍然被忽视。它们的吸收和谨慎应用将大大有助于植物生态学的进步。
1. Numerous approaches have been taken to analysing the relationship between plant interactions and environmental severity. Considerable debate surrounds this relationship and its implications for the evolution of plant strategies and traits. This debate is commonly associated with the names of two of its main protagonists: Grime and Tilman.2. However, because researchers often fail to make explicit the distinction between two concepts - the importance and intensity of competition - they perpetuate this debate. To illustrate this point we discuss a new approach to examining plant interactions across gradients proposed by Wilson.3. We support the main thrust of Wilson's work - improving the information provided by interaction indices. However, we highlight what we believe to be an oversight in Wilson's Discussion: the proposal that his new indices can shed light on the Grime-Tilman debate. We argue that this is not possible as Wilson's indices measure competition intensity (competition's absolute impact), whereas Grime's theories relate to competition importance (competition's relative impact).4. We support our argument through re-analysis of the data explored by Wilson, demonstrating that the relationships between competition importance, competition intensity, Wilson's new indices and biomass (a surrogate of productivity) are both complex and variable.5. Wilson's discussion is part of a body of literature that overlooks the distinction between competition importance and intensity. We examine a number of other well-known studies, demonstrating how this oversight and associated confusion are widespread, may have originated with the concept's original source, and unnecessarily perpetuate debate.6. Synthesis. The concepts of competition intensity and importance are central to resolving key ecological debates, but are still overlooked in contemporary research. Their uptake and careful application would greatly aid advances in plant ecology.