SynthesisEcology2025
Competitive ability underpins the effect of spatial aggregation on plant performance.
Synthesis in Ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Spatial clustering modifies competition in a diverse annual plant community.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most plant species exhibit spatially clustered distributions. Theory suggests such conspecific aggregation can delay competitive exclusion by sparing weak competitors. However, the extent to which spatial aggregation increases species performance and which species are likely to benefit from it remain largely unknown. In this study, we asked (1) whether spatial aggregation enhances plant performance and (2) whether the effects are biologically predictable. For the second question, we focused on "the competition-relatedness hypothesis" and the "competitive asymmetry hypothesis," which relate the effect of spatial arrangement to niche and competitive ability differences between species, respectively. We performed phylogenetic meta-analyses to investigate whether phylogenetic and ecological differences among competitors explain the effect of spatial arrangement. We found idiosyncratic responses of plant species to spatial aggregation. While some species performed better when conspecific individuals were aggregated, others did so when conspecifics and heterospecifics were randomly distributed. The non-negligible number of species benefiting more from intraspecific aggregation indicates that intraspecific competition is sometimes weaker than interspecific competition. Further, the result contrasts with the assumption of the competition-relatedness hypothesis, which postulates the strongest competition among conspecifics, suggesting that this hypothesis does not hold for at least these species. Although phylogeny did not predict the effect of spatial arrangement, interspecific plant height differences did: Species performed better in an aggregation treatment when they were smaller than competitors. Collectively, our results lend more support for the competitive asymmetry hypothesis that interspecific differences in competitive ability underpin the effect of spatial arrangement on plant performance. Moreover, they suggest that spatial processes, such as dispersal limitation, may play an important role in plant coexistence.
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.