ArticleEcology2025
Priority effects can be explained by competitive traits.
Article in Ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phylogenetic Diversity Outperforms Functional Diversity in Predicting Aboveground Biomass Across Tree Strata in a Subtropical Forest.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Germination speed modulates priority effects: Evidence from a large-scale field study.Ecology · 2026Article
- Article
- Priority effects can be explained by competitive traits.Ecology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Priority effects, the effects of early-arriving species on late-arriving species, are caused by niche preemption and/or niche modification. The strength of priority effects can be determined by the extent of niche preemption and/or modification by the early-arriving species; however, the strength of priority effects may also be influenced by the late-arriving species, as some species may be better adapted to deal with niche preemption and/or modification. Therefore, some combinations of species will likely lead to stronger priority effects than others. We tested priority effects for all pairwise combinations of 15 plant species, including grasses, legumes, and nonleguminous forbs, by comparing simultaneous and sequential arrival orders in a 10-week-long, controlled, pot experiment. We did this by using the competitive effect and response framework, quantifying the ability to suppress a neighbor as the competitive effect and the ability to tolerate a neighbor as the competitive response. We found that when arriving simultaneously, species that caused strong competitive effects also had weaker competitive responses. When arriving sequentially, species that caused strong priority effects when arriving early also had weaker responses to priority effects when arriving late. Among plant functional groups, legumes had the weakest response to priority effects. We also measured plant functional traits related to the plant economic spectrum, which were combined into a principal components analysis (PCA) where the first axis represented a conservative-to-acquisitive trait gradient. Using the PCA species scores, we showed that both the traits of the focal and the neighboring species determined the outcome of competition. Trait dissimilarities between the focal and neighboring species were more important when species arrived sequentially than when species arrived simultaneously. Specifically, priority effects only became weaker when the late-arriving species was more acquisitive than the early-arriving species. Together, our findings show that traits and specifically the interaction of traits between species are more important in determining competition outcomes when species arrive sequentially (i.e., with priority effects present) than when arriving simultaneously.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.