4.4 Article

Matrix Dimensions Bias Demographic Inferences: Implications for Comparative Plant Demography

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 176, 期 6, 页码 710-722

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/657044

关键词

collapsing; comparative plant demography; elasticity; matrix dimension; population growth rate (lambda); projection matrix models

资金

  1. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  3. James S. McDonnell Foundation
  4. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  5. University of Pennsylvania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While the wealth of projection matrices in plant demography permits comparative studies, variation in matrix dimensions complicates interspecific comparisons. Collapsing matrices to a common dimension may facilitate such comparisons but may also bias the inferred demographic parameters. Here we examine how matrix dimension affects inferred demographic elasticities and how different collapsing criteria perform. We analyzed 13 x 13 matrices representing nine plant species, collapsing these matrices (i) into even 7 x 7, 5 x 5, 4 x 4, and 3 x 3 matrices and (ii) into 5 x 5 matrices using different criteria. Stasis and fecundity elasticities increased when matrix dimension was reduced, whereas those of progression and retrogression decreased. We suggest a collapsing criterion that minimizes dissimilarities between the original-and collapsed-matrix elasticities and apply it to 66 plant species to study how life span and growth form influence the relationship between matrix dimension and elasticities. Our analysis demonstrates that (i) projection matrix dimension has significant effects on inferred demographic parameters, (ii) there are better-performing methods than previously suggested for standardizing matrix dimension, and (iii) herbaceous perennial projection matrices are particularly sensitive to changes in matrix dimensionality. For comparative demographic studies, we recommend normalizing matrices to a common dimension by collapsing higher classes and leaving the first few classes unaltered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据