Publication: Why equalising trade-offs aren't always neutral
Why equalising trade-offs aren't always neutral
Date
Date
Date
Citations
Turnbull, L. A., Rees, M., & Purves, D. W. (2008). Why equalising trade-offs aren’t always neutral. Ecology Letters, 11, 1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01214.x
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Equalising trade-offs, such as seed mass vs. number, have been invoked to reconcile neutral theory with observed differences between species. This is an appealing explanation for the dramatic seed size variation seen within guilds of otherwise similar plants: under size-symmetric competition, where resource capture is proportional to mass, the outcome of competition should be insensitive to whether species produce many small seeds or few large ones. However, under this assumption, stochastic variation in seed rain leads to exclusion o
Metrics
Downloads
Views
Additional indexing
Creators (Authors)
Volume
Volume
Volume
Number
Number
Number
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page end
Page end
Page end
Item Type
Item Type
Item Type
Dewey Decimal Classifikation
Dewey Decimal Classifikation
Dewey Decimal Classifikation
Keywords
Language
Language
Language
Publication date
Publication date
Publication date
Date available
Date available
Date available
ISSN or e-ISSN
ISSN or e-ISSN
ISSN or e-ISSN
Additional Information
Additional Information
Additional Information
OA Status
OA Status
OA Status
Publisher DOI
Metrics
Downloads
Views
Citations
Turnbull, L. A., Rees, M., & Purves, D. W. (2008). Why equalising trade-offs aren’t always neutral. Ecology Letters, 11, 1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01214.x