↓ Skip to main content

Measuring the demographic impact of conspecific negative density dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Measuring the demographic impact of conspecific negative density dependence
Published in
Oecologia, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3863-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evan C. Fricke, S. Joseph Wright

Abstract

Rare plant species often suffer stronger conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD) in studies that assess the impact of local conspecific density on individual survival. All else equal, this causes a relative disadvantage among rare species that appears inconsistent with the role of CNDD in coexistence. The resolution to this apparent paradox is for lower species abundance to decrease the frequency of conspecific interactions sufficiently to outweigh the disadvantage of stronger CNDD. Whether this occurs in natural systems is untested because existing metrics do not isolate demographic impacts of CNDD, and it is also uncertain for tropical forest trees because the greater spatial aggregation observed in rare species could cause higher frequency of conspecific interactions despite lower abundance on the landscape. We develop a new metric, effective density-dependent mortality (EDDM), to quantify the proportion of individuals that are killed by density-dependent effects. We apply EDDM to a long-term study of seed fall and recruitment at Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Rare species had stronger CNDD but lower conspecific densities, and EDDM increased with abundance. Lower abundance, thus, reduces the frequency of conspecific interaction and, consequently, mortality associated with CNDD. This mechanism allows rare species to avoid a disadvantage-when-rare that would, all else equal, result from stronger CNDD in rare species. Our work provides empirical support for a resolution to the apparently paradoxical findings that rare species experience stronger CNDD and may help reconcile contrasting findings for the relationship between the CNDD strength and abundance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Student > Master 11 21%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 56%
Environmental Science 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,453,139
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,266
of 4,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,307
of 309,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#37
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.