ArticleEcology2025
Seasonal climate drives population growth but not costs of reproduction of a perennial wildflower.
Article 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.
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.
- Seasonal climate drives population growth but not costs of reproduction of a perennial wildflower.Ecology · 2025Article
- Linking Climate and Demography to Predict Population Dynamics and Persistence Under Global Change.Ecology letters · 2025Review
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
Costs of reproduction are predicted to shift under climate change, but the extent to which weaker or stronger costs influence population responses to interannual climate variation is unknown. We asked how seasonal climate, manipulated rainfall, and costs of reproduction influence vital rates and population growth in a long-lived herbaceous perennial plant, Primula hendersonii, across an ongoing rainfall manipulation experiment in oak savanna of northwestern North America. Simulated drought reduced population growth rates, and vital rates (e.g., probability of flowering, individual growth) responded individualistically to variation in winter, spring, and summer temperatures, although not to variation in seasonal precipitation. However, only warmer spring temperatures were associated with a decline in population growth rates. Although we observed a weak negative effect of past reproduction on growth and future reproduction for large individuals, these costs of reproduction ultimately did not influence population growth. Further, observational and manipulative experiments to detect costs of reproduction suggest subtle differences in cost expression. We show that direct climate drivers had a stronger effect on population growth than indirect changes in costs of reproduction and may be more important for understanding population persistence under climate change.
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.