4.5 Article

Unifying facilitation and recruitment networks

期刊

JOURNAL OF VEGETATION SCIENCE
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 1239-1249

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jvs.12795

关键词

canopy-recruit interactions; ecological networks; facilitation networks; nurse plants; plant-plant interactions; recruitment networks; replacement dynamics; replacement networks; sapling bank; strongly connected components

资金

  1. Red CYTED [P417RT0228]
  2. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad
  3. FEDER funds from the EU
  4. Project COEXMED II and PIROPHENO [CGL2015-69118-C2-1-P, CGL2017-89751-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecological network studies are providing important advances about the organization, stability and dynamics of ecological systems. However, the ecological networks approach is being integrated very slowly in plant community ecology, even though the first studies on plant facilitation networks (FNs) were published more than a decade ago. The study of interaction networks between established plants and plants recruiting beneath them, which we call Recruitment Networks (RNs), can provide new insights on mechanisms driving plant community structure and dynamics. RNs basically describe which plants recruit under which others, so they can be seen as a generalisation of the classic FNs since they do not imply any particular effect (positive, negative or neutral) of the established plants on recruiting ones. RNs summarise information on the structure of sapling banks. More importantly, the information included in RNs can be incorporated into models of replacement dynamics to evaluate how different aspects of network structure, or different mechanisms of network assembly, may affect plant community stability and species coexistence. To allow an efficient development of the study of FNs and RNs, here we unify concepts, synthesise current knowledge, clarify some conceptual issues, and propose basic methodological guidelines to standardise sampling methods that could make future studies of these networks directly comparable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据