Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific ...
Recommend Documents
Electronically published October 9, 2007. Online enhancements: ... signed by an independent random draw from a species-specific prob- ability distribution.
1974; Simmons 1987), and that an .... (Simmons 1987; Simmons & Parker 1992; LaMunyon. & Eisner .... atmosphere, Matt Gage, Mike Siva-]othy and two anony-.
conducted under the authorization of the .... tion and its behavioral signature in animal movement patterns ..... from August, is included as electronic supplement.
renewable resource. ... than diggers between patches or convert the resources to population .... effectively increases the number of resource types. The.
predator-avoidance strategies and parameters that make them ...... egg production, as well as in larval mortality, Table 2 also provides .... size-independent natural mortality estimated using Pauly's (1980) ..... there would be little opportunity fo
Feb 28, 2008 - bacteria, acetogens and methanogens in a lab-scale anaerobic bioreactor as ..... software program (Ludwig et al. 2004) and aligned using.
Intraspecific competition was scramble-like, and the parasitised hosts were ... tion by parasitised hosts and scramble competition contribute to the dynamical.
Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific ...
Table S2. Summary of the mixed effects model for the average log ratio of inter:intraspecific competition for the Response data set. Response model. (Intercept).
Competition and coexistence in plant communities: intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition Peter B. Adler1, Danielle Smull1, Karen H. Beard1, Ryan T. Choi1, Tucker Furniss1, Andrew Kulmatiski1, Joan Meiners2, Andrew T. Tredennick1, Kari E. Veblen1 1Department
of Wildland Resources and the Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT
84322 2School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Supplementary Tables
Table S1. Qualitative outcomes of inter- and intraspecific interactions for the Response data set. Values are the number of observations within each category. Interspecific competition Interspecific facilitation Intraspecific competition 559 185 Intraspecific facilitation 13 1 Table S2. Summary of the mixed effects model for the average log ratio of inter:intraspecific competition for the Response data set. Response model (Intercept) -1.31 [-1.81; -0.81]* Num. obs. 559 Num. groups: Target.species:study 200 Num. groups: study 33 Var: Target.species:study (Intercept) 0.59 Var: study (Intercept) 1.11 Var: Residual 5.58 *
0 outside the confidence interval
Supplementary Figures
Fig. S1. Three realizations (rows) of a simulation showing the relationship between the log ratios of competitive Effects and Responses (each based on one inter- and one intraspecific coefficient) and niche overlap, ρ (based on all four coefficients). In all three cases, variation in the Effect and Response samples is higher than in the sample of ρ (right panels), but bias in the estimates of the mean is idiosyncratic (left panels). The dashed horizontal line shows the true mean. Code is in CompRegress_simulation.r.
Fig. S2. Characteristics of the 577 pairs of inter- and intraspecific effects in the competitive effects data set.
Fig. S3. Characteristics of the 722 pairs of inter- and intraspecific effects in the competitive responses data set.
Fig. S4. Boxplots for 11 observations of intra- and interspecific effects pooled across species.
