| Literature DB >> 29798855 |
Joseph A LaManna1,2, Scott A Mangan2, Alfonso Alonso3, Norman A Bourg4, Warren Y Brockelman5,6, Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin7, Li-Wan Chang8, Jyh-Min Chiang9, George B Chuyong10, Keith Clay11, Susan Cordell12, Stuart J Davies13,14, Tucker J Furniss15, Christian P Giardina12, I A U Nimal Gunatilleke16, C V Savitri Gunatilleke16, Fangliang He17,18, Robert W Howe19, Stephen P Hubbell20, Chang-Fu Hsieh21, Faith M Inman-Narahari12, David Janík22, Daniel J Johnson23, David Kenfack13,14, Lisa Korte3, Kamil Král22, Andrew J Larson24, James A Lutz15, Sean M McMahon25,26, William J McShea27, Hervé R Memiaghe28, Anuttara Nathalang5, Vojtech Novotny29,30,31, Perry S Ong32, David A Orwig33, Rebecca Ostertag34, Geoffrey G Parker26, Richard P Phillips11, Lawren Sack20, I-Fang Sun35, J Sebastián Tello36, Duncan W Thomas37, Benjamin L Turner38, Dilys M Vela Díaz2, Tomáš Vrška22, George D Weiblen39, Amy Wolf19,40, Sandra Yap41, Jonathan A Myers42,2.
Abstract
Chisholm and Fung claim that our method of estimating conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD) in recruitment is systematically biased, and present an alternative method that shows no latitudinal pattern in CNDD. We demonstrate that their approach produces strongly biased estimates of CNDD, explaining why they do not detect a latitudinal pattern. We also address their methodological concerns using an alternative distance-weighted approach, which supports our original findings of a latitudinal gradient in CNDD and a latitudinal shift in the relationship between CNDD and species abundance.Entities:
Mesh：
Year: 2018 PMID： 29798855 DOI： 10.1126/science.aar5245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Science ISSN： 0036-8075 Impact factor: 47.728