Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32631995›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020

Individual differences determine the strength of ecological interactions.

Jason I Griffiths, Dylan Z Childs, Ronald D Bassar, Tim Coulson, David N Reznick, Mark Rees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Smaller is better in competition for space.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Four key challenges in the open-data revolution.The Journal of animal ecology · 2021
    Article
  4. Individual differences determine the strength of ecological interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jason I GriffithsDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom; jasonigriff@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1667-8233
Dylan Z ChildsDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0675-4933
Ronald D BassarBiology Department, Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267.
Tim CoulsonDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9371-9003
David N ReznickDepartment of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
Mark ReesDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biotic interactions are central to both ecological and evolutionary dynamics. In the vast majority of empirical studies, the strength of intraspecific interactions is estimated by using simple measures of population size. Biologists have long known that these are crude metrics, with experiments and theory suggesting that interactions between individuals should depend on traits, such as body size. Despite this, it has been difficult to estimate the impact of traits on competitive ability from ecological field data, and this explains why the strength of biotic interactions has empirically been treated in a simplistic manner. Using long-term observational data from four different populations, we show that large Trinidadian guppies impose a significantly larger competitive pressure on conspecifics than individuals that are smaller; in other words, competition is asymmetric. When we incorporate this asymmetry into integral projection models, the predicted size structure is much closer to what we see in the field compared with models where competition is independent of body size. This difference in size structure translates into a twofold difference in reproductive output. This demonstrates how the nature of ecological interactions drives the size structure, which, in turn, will have important implications for both the ecological and evolutionary dynamics.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEcosystemPopulation DensityPopulation DynamicsAnimalsBody SizeFemaleMaleModels, BiologicalPoeciliaasymmetric competitionsize structureTrinidadian guppies

Identifiers

PMID32631995
PMCPMC7382284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.