Am. J. Bot. Join BSA Today!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vargas-Mendoza, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Fowler, N. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Vargas-Mendoza, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Fowler, N. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Vargas-Mendoza, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Fowler, N. L.

American Journal of Botany, Vol 85, 932, Copyright © 1998 by Botanical Society of America, Inc.

ECOLOGY

Resource-based models of competitive interactions. I. Intraspecific competition in Ratibida columnifera ( Asteraceae)

MC Vargas-Mendoza and NL Fowler

We constructed and tested a series of regression models of intraspecific competition in Ratibida columnifera (Asteraceae), based on the growth and water use of individual plants. Models were constructed from a set of plants ("model") grown without competition under three watering regimes. Each model was then tested on another set of plants ("test") grown, singly or in pairs, under two watering regimes, one of them different than those of the "model" plants. Both sets of plants were grown simultaneously. Models that used only estimates of plant dry mass (ISON [interval by interval size only], and SON [size only]) were outperformed (i.e., the difference between predicted values of final dry mass and their true values were larger on average) by models that incorporated direct measures of water uptake and usage (ISAW [interval by interval size and water], WON [water only], SAW [size and water]). Harvest biomass predictions given by these three last models deviated from values of true biomass by an average of only 6.1%.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GeneticsHome page
M. Lunzer, A. Natarajan, D. E. Dykhuizen, and A. M. Dean
Enzyme Kinetics, Substitutable Resources and Competition: From Biochemistry to Frequency-Dependent Selection in lac
Genetics, September 1, 2002; 162(1): 485 - 499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.