↓ Skip to main content

Plant diversity in tropical forests: a review of mechanisms of species coexistence

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2127 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Plant diversity in tropical forests: a review of mechanisms of species coexistence
Published in
Oecologia, January 2002
DOI 10.1007/s004420100809
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph S. Wright

Abstract

Evidence concerning mechanisms hypothesized to explain species coexistence in hyper-diverse communities is reviewed for tropical forest plants. Three hypotheses receive strong support. Niche differences are evident from non-random spatial distributions along micro-topographic gradients and from a survivorship-growth tradeoff during regeneration. Host-specific pests reduce recruitment near reproductive adults (the Janzen-Connell effect), and, negative density dependence occurs over larger spatial scales among the more abundant species and may regulate their populations. A fourth hypothesis, that suppressed understory plants rarely come into competition with one another, has not been considered before and has profound implications for species coexistence. These hypotheses are mutually compatible. Infrequent competition among suppressed understory plants, niche differences, and Janzen-Connell effects may facilitate the coexistence of the many rare plant species found in tropical forests while negative density dependence regulates the few most successful and abundant species.

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 2,127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 78 4%
United States 35 2%
Germany 12 <1%
Mexico 10 <1%
Spain 8 <1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Ecuador 6 <1%
Colombia 6 <1%
Netherlands 5 <1%
Other 57 3%
Unknown 1903 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 424 20%
Researcher 375 18%
Student > Master 351 17%
Student > Bachelor 228 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 129 6%
Other 393 18%
Unknown 227 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1193 56%
Environmental Science 504 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 64 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 1%
Engineering 13 <1%
Other 38 2%
Unknown 286 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,538,708
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,693
of 4,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,115
of 133,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 133,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.