Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

A multiscale theory based on metabolic scaling connects forest dynamics to tree-size distributions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A solvable forest model shows that the shape of a tree-size distribution is a mechanistic readout of whether a forest is limited by space or by resources.

desk verdict A tractable forest-size model with a novel dual power-law crossover and a boundary-driven dispersal-exclusion mechanism, but the 'exponent as forest condition' readout rests on hand-written mortality closures that need a sensitivity test. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11918 v1 pith:OAKNFSGO submitted 2026-08-12 q-bio.PE physics.bio-ph

Christian Grilletta , Tommaso Anfodillo , Gaia Pasqualotto , Samir Suweis , Andrea Rinaldo , Amos Maritan , Davide Bernardi This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEphysics.bio-ph MSC 92D4092D25
keywords tree-sizedistributionmetabolicscalingforestdynamicspower-lawsize-structuredpopulationmodeldispersalkernelresourcecompetitionspace
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the shape of a forest's tree-size distribution is not merely a summary statistic but a mechanistically readable record of what limits tree growth. Starting from metabolic energy balance for individual trees, the authors build a size-structured dynamical model with light shading, density-dependent mortality, and seed dispersal, and solve it exactly in the spatially homogeneous limit. The stationary solution has two power-law regimes: small trees follow a slope set by resource saturation, while larger trees follow a slope set by crown allometry and spatial competition. The height at which the distribution switches between these regimes is controlled by seed recruitment and local resource availability. If the model is right, a forest inventory can indicate whether resource limitation or space competition dominates, and how far the forest sits from an undisturbed reference state.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a McKendrick–von Foerster continuity equation in height space for tree density $\rho_\alpha(x,h,t)$, coupled to three process terms: ontogenetic growth derived from metabolic energy balance (growth velocity $g_\alpha(h)=g_0(1-h/h_u)$), Beer–Lambert light attenuation by taller neighbors, and a mortality rate split into space competition $d_S=d\,I\,h^{2H}\rho$ and resource competition $d_R=(g(h)/h)\,R[\rho]/R_a$, where $R[\rho]=\int h^{1+2H}\rho\,dh$ is total community metabolic demand. Recruitment enters as a nonlocal boundary condition at seedling height through a dispersal kernel. In the homogeneous limit the stationary equation reduces to a solvable form whose asymptotic expansion gives the two power laws and the crossover of eqs. (14)–(15); the same machinery, with a Bessel-function kernel for a strip geometry, produces the boundary and multispecies results.

What would settle it

Measure, in a set of forest plots, the small-size and large-size slopes of the size distribution together with independent estimates of the resource saturation ratio $a=R/R_a$ and the crown allometry exponent $H$. If the small-size slope does not track $a$, or the crossover height does not shift with measured recruitment and $R_a$ as eq. (15) predicts, the mortality closure is falsified. A simpler check: in a plot where fertilization or irrigation raises $R_a$, the model predicts the crossover $h_c$ moves downward; if it stays fixed while both slopes change, the proposed mechanism is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the stationary tree-size density $\rho^*(h)$ obeys a closed-form two-term expression (eq. 14) in which a resource-competition term produces a small-size power law $\rho^*(h)\sim h^{-a}$ and a space-competition term produces a large-size power law $\rho^*(h)\sim h^{-(1+2H)}$. Here $a=R[\rho^*]/R_a$ is the local resource saturation ratio and $H$ is the crown allometry exponent, so the crossover height $h_c$ where the two terms balance is set by recruitment intensity and available resources. The paper claims this makes the observable size-distribution slope a mechanistic readout of forest condition: $a\approx 1+2H$ signals space-limited dynamics, while $a\ll 1+2H$ signals resource-limited dynamics. It further claims that in spatially explicit settings, boundary disturbances suppress small trees much more than large ones, and that in two-species systems a longer dispersal range becomes a systematic disadvantage near boundaries, driving abundance declines that extend far beyond the dispersal length.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that mortality from space competition scales as $d\,I\,h^{2H}\rho$ and mortality from resource competition as $(g(h)/h)\,R[\rho]/R_a$; these two functional forms are postulated rather than derived, and they are exactly what produces the two power-law exponents and the crossover.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A forest whose size spectrum follows a single power law with slope close to $-(1+2H)$ is operating in the space-limited, resource-abundant regime, while a visibly smaller slope indicates resource saturation with $a<1+2H$.
  • The crossover height $h_c$ moves downward when sapling recruitment is strong or available resources are high, so surveys that resolve small trees can locate the crossover and infer recruitment and resource status.
  • Edge and fragmentation effects should appear mainly in the small-tree sector, so substantial declines in total density can occur even while total resource consumption stays nearly uniform.
  • In mixed forests, species with longer dispersal ranges should decline near forest edges and possibly across the whole fragment, with the exclusion timescale growing as dispersal ranges converge.
  • In a homogeneous environment, dispersal range alone does not change stationary relative abundances, so observed dispersal-related differences in abundance imply spatial structure or disturbance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test would use permanent-plot inventories with simultaneous light and resource measurements to estimate $a$ and $H$ independently, then compare the predicted versus observed exponent and crossover height.
  • The same two-regime structure may apply to other sessile, size-structured communities such as coral, seagrass, or mussel beds, where canopy shading and space occupancy play analogous roles.
  • The model suggests a null expectation that disturbance gradients should shift the small-size exponent before the large-size exponent, a pattern that remote sensing of canopy height distributions could search for.
  • Because the homogeneous solution is independent of dispersal kernel shape, persistent deviations from the predicted dual power law in real forests could serve as a diagnostic for spatial heterogeneity or boundary effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a spatially explicit, size-structured model of forest dynamics based on a McKendrick–von Foerster equation, incorporating metabolic-scaling growth, Beer-Lambert light attenuation, two density-dependent mortality terms (space competition and resource competition), and nonlocal recruitment through seed dispersal. In the spatially homogeneous mean-field limit, the authors derive an exact stationary solution which, in the intermediate asymptotic regime, reduces to a dual power-law size distribution with exponents -a for small sizes and -(1+2H) for large sizes, separated by a crossover height h_c (eqs. 14-15). They interpret the exponent a, defined as the resource saturation ratio R[ρ*]/R_a, as a mechanistic readout of forest condition: a ≈ 1+2H indicates space limitation, while a ≪ 1+2H indicates resource limitation. The paper then analyzes the effect of a strip boundary on the stationary state, showing that small trees are disproportionately depleted while total resource consumption is barely affected, and extends this to two species with different dispersal lengths, finding that the long-dispersal species declines over very long timescales. The authors claim that these results connect individual-level metabolic scaling to community-level size-distribution scaling and provide a unifying dynamical perspective on forest scaling laws.

Significance. If the model's closures are accepted, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it provides an analytically tractable framework linking allometric growth, competition, and dispersal to an exact stationary size distribution, and the dual-power-law prediction with a crossover is precise and potentially falsifiable against forest inventory data. The boundary-effect result (edge suppression of small trees with weak impact on total resource consumption) and the dispersal-mediated competitive imbalance are interesting and non-obvious. The authors are transparent about the mean-field and homogeneity assumptions and provide numerical simulations for the spatial results. However, the significance is currently limited by the fact that the central 'exponent as forest condition' readout is largely built into the mortality closures rather than derived from metabolic scaling, and the predictive content of the exponent–condition relationship is not yet demonstrated against data beyond qualitative agreement with earlier disturbance studies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods 'Resource competition'; eqs. (5)-(6), (23)] The two mortality closures are not derived from metabolic scaling; the resource-consumption dynamics in eq. (23) is a postulated logistic form, and the mortality term d_R = \tilde{g}_α(h)/h · R[ρ]/R_a in eq. (6) is the term that reproduces it. Similarly, the space-competition term d_S = d_α I_α h^{2H}ρ in eq. (5) is a direct assumption about the interaction range. The Discussion's statement that the scaling regimes 'arise directly from explicit demographic processes rather than from phenomenological assumptions' is therefore unsupported for the central exponents. A plausible alternative closure, for example d_R ∝ h^q (R/R_a)^p, would change both the predicted exponent and its interpretation. Please provide a mechanistic derivation of eqs. (5)-(6) from explicit biological processes, or a sensitivity analysis showing that the two-exponent structure and the crossover height are robust to plausible variations of these functional forms, or re-frame the claims as explicitly conditional on the closures.
  2. [Results 'Exact stationary solution'; eqs. (14)-(15)] The small-size exponent is, by construction, the resource saturation ratio a = R[ρ*]/R_a that appears in the mortality term (6), and the statement that a ≪ 1+2H indicates resource limitation is therefore close to a definitional identity within the model. The predictive content of the readout lies in how a and the crossover height h_c depend on the environmental parameters (R_a, κ, γ, h_0, H, h_u), but the paper does not provide explicit expressions for a(R_a, κ, ...) or a quantitative comparison with measured size-distribution exponents, only a qualitative agreement with the disturbance literature. Please derive the parametric dependence of a and h_c, or confront the model's predicted exponent–crossover relationship with forest inventory data, so that the 'exponent as forest condition' claim becomes a falsifiable prediction.
  3. [Results 'Exact stationary solution', stability paragraph] The global stability of the stationary density ρ*(h) is asserted via an appeal to a 'formal time-dependent exact solution' and to numerical simulations, with no proof or precise conditions. Because the boundary and multispecies analyses all start from the premise that the system converges to ρ*(h), this gap is load-bearing. Please provide a proof of (or a precise statement of the conditions for) global convergence, or soften the claim to local stability for the parameter regimes used in the simulations.
  4. [Discussion, last paragraph] The list of biological limitations (identical dynamics across species, homogeneous environment, isotropic dispersal, single effective resource) omits the most fundamental source of uncertainty for the central claim: the dependence of the predicted exponents and the crossover on the hand-written mortality closures in eqs. (5)-(6). Please add an explicit discussion of this limitation, and note that alternative closures would alter the exponents and their interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results 'Exact stationary solution'] The sentence 'The critical height h_c depends on the the sapling recruitment rate' contains a duplicated definite article; remove 'the the'.
  2. [Results 'Exact stationary solution', stability paragraph] 'supporting that it is globally stabile' should read 'globally stable'.
  3. [Methods 'Stationary solution', eq. (29)] The hypergeometric argument '2F1(2,δδ+ 1;z)' appears to contain a typo; it should presumably be '2F1(2, δ, δ+1; z)' or the intended pair of parameters.
  4. [Introduction; references [19], [39]] The crown-radius scaling r_c ∼ h^H is cited to both [19] and [39]; [39] is a study of seedling-layer abundance patterns and does not appear to support this allometric relation. Please correct the citation.
  5. [Results 'Interplay of boundary effects and inter-species interactions'; fig. 4C inset] The decay timescale τ_ξ is estimated by an exponential fit in the range 50 ≤ τ ≤ 300, but the paper reports no confidence intervals or details of the fitting procedure. Please specify the fit, the error bars, and the sensitivity to the chosen time window.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The resource-regime exponent in eq. (14) is the same parameter a that was inserted by hand into the mortality closure in eq. (6), so the headline 'slope as forest condition' readout is partly constructed rather than independently derived.

  1. self definitional [Eqs. (5)-(8), eq. (14), and the 'Exact stationary solution' interpretation in Results.]
    "We model the mortality term as the sum of two contributions ... dRα(x,h,t)=˜gα(h)/h R[ρ(x,t)]/Ra(x) (6) ... The ratio a(x,t)=R[ρ(x,t)]/Ra(x) (8) therefore measures the local level of resource saturation. ... In the regime h0≪h≪hc, the first contribution dominates and ρ∗(h)∼h−a."

    The stationary exponent in the resource-limited regime is literally the symbol a that was defined in eq. (8) as R[ρ]/Ra and then placed into the mortality closure by hand in eq. (6). Solving the stationary continuity equation with a linear mortality coefficient a g(h)/h returns ρ* ∼ h^{-a}, so no independent metabolic derivation fixes that exponent. The paper's central interpretive claim that a small observed exponent indicates resource limitation is therefore a restatement of the hand-written closure rather than a separate consequence of metabolic scaling. The model does compute a self-consistently and does not fit the exponent to data, so the circularity is partial; the crossover shape, boundary effects, and multispecies dynamics add independent content.

full rationale

The paper's mathematical machinery—McKendrick-von Foerster dynamics, the exact hypergeometric stationary solution, the crossover height, and the spatially explicit boundary and two-species results—is internally self-contained and not driven by data fitting or by a self-citation chain. The main circularity is in the headline resource-regime prediction: the small-size exponent -a is the same resource-saturation ratio a that the authors wrote into the mortality closure by hand in eq. (6), and eq. (14) then returns this same a as the observable slope. Thus the mechanistic statement 'a low exponent indicates resource limitation' is substantially built into the ansatz, not derived from metabolic scaling. The large-size exponent -(1+2H) similarly mirrors the allometric input B ∼ h^{1+2H} and the hand-written h^{2H}ρ space-competition term, though it is consistent with established MTE results. No load-bearing self-citation or imported-uniqueness argument was found, and the spatial disturbance and dispersal-competition results are independent of the exponent-interpretation claim. The score reflects a central prediction that reduces by construction to eq. (6), but with genuine self-consistency and additional non-circular results preventing a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of standard metabolic scaling inputs plus two hand-written mortality terms. The latter are the least constrained part: they are introduced as model choices (eqs. 5-6) and are exactly what decides the two exponents, so they are listed as ad hoc. No invented entities beyond the effective resource variable appear; the dispersal kernel and allometric relations are standard tools.

free parameters (7)
  • κ (kernel spatial integral) = 0.001, 10, 1e-6, 0.01, 0.018 in Figs. 2-4
    Controls sapling injection rate and crossover height; chosen by hand.
  • Ra (available resource flux) = 220, 235, 80, 125, 112 in Figs. 2-4
    Sets resource saturation a and crossover; chosen by hand.
  • γ (shading coefficient) = γ=1
    Strength of light attenuation; weakly affects crossover; chosen by hand.
  • H (crown allometry Hurst exponent) = H=1
    Sets large-size exponent -(1+2H); input from allometric literature, used as 1 in figures.
  • hu (maximum tree height) = 100 or 50
    Truncation scale of growth law; chosen by hand.
  • h0=hb (recruitment height) = 0.1
    Lower boundary of tracked size distribution; chosen by hand.
  • ξ and L (dispersal length, strip width) = ξ=1, L=10
    Spatial simulation geometry; chosen by hand.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Metabolic energy balance dM/dt=c1B-c2M with B∼h^{1+2H} and M∼h^{2+2H}
    Basis of growth law eq. (2); taken from MTE refs [9-13,17].
  • domain assumption Crown radius allometry rc∼h^H with 0≤H≤1
    Used to relate metabolic rate, sapwood, and crown area to height; refs [19,39].
  • domain assumption Beer-Lambert light attenuation: I=exp(-γ∫_h∞ ρ h'^{2H} dh')
    Canopy shading model, eq. (4).
  • ad hoc to paper Space-competition mortality dS=d I h^{2H}ρ
    Postulated in eq. (5); produces the h^{-(1+2H)} regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Resource-competition mortality dR=g/h R[ρ]/Ra
    Postulated in eq. (6); produces the h^{-a} regime and links exponent to saturation ratio.
  • domain assumption Neutral assumption of identical growth, mortality, shading parameters across species
    Reduces multispecies dynamics to total density; standard neutral theory [42].
  • domain assumption Spatially homogeneous mean-field recruitment with kernel integral κ
    Required for exact stationary solution; valid when dispersal length exceeds system size.
  • domain assumption Recruitment boundary at h0 with fecundity ∝h^{1+2H}
    Boundary condition eq. (9); encodes metabolic scaling of seed production.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence and uniqueness of self-consistent solution a and ρ*(h0)
    a is defined by eq. (26) and ρ*(h0) by eq. (11); no closed-form proof of existence is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A multiscale theory based on metabolic scaling connects forest dynamics to tree-size distributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAKNFSGO

@misc{pith2026260811918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A multiscale theory based on metabolic scaling connects forest dynamics to tree-size distributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAKNFSGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11918}
}
read the original abstract

Scaling relations linking species size, abundance, and resource availability are among the most robust empirical regularities in ecology. However, a mechanistic explanation for how these community-level laws emerge from ecological processes remains elusive. Here, we address this gap by developing a minimal spatially explicit dynamical framework for forest communities that incorporates seed dispersal, growth limited by local light availability, local competition, and global resource constraints grounded in metabolic scaling principles. By deriving an analytical solution for the tree-size distribution, we show that its stationary state exhibits two distinct power-law regimes whose exponents are controlled by the relative strength of resource and spatial competition. The crossover between these regimes is set by the interplay between seed injection and local resource availability, establishing an explicit link between the scaling exponent of the size distribution and forest condition. Finally, we show that boundary disturbances can break the ecological balance between competing species and induce effects that propagate deeply into the forest bulk, far beyond the single-plant dispersal range. Together, these results provide a unifying dynamical perspective on forest scaling laws with potential applications to a broad range of biological communities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11918 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. A. Levin, The problem of pattern and scale in ecology, Ecology73, 1943 (1992)

    1992

  2. [2]

    Kleiber,The fire of life

    M. Kleiber,The fire of life. An introduction to animal energetics.(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: London,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Damuth, Scaling of growth: Plants and animals are not so different, Proc

    J. Damuth, Scaling of growth: Plants and animals are not so different, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.98, 2113 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    P. A. Marquet, R. A. Qui˜ nones, S. Abades, F. Labra, M. Tognelli, M. Arim, and M. Rivadeneira, Scaling and power-laws in ecological systems, J. Exp. Biol.208, 1749 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Damuth, Population density and body size in mammals, Nature290, 699 (1981)

    J. Damuth, Population density and body size in mammals, Nature290, 699 (1981)

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    J. R. Banavar, A. Maritan, and A. Rinaldo, Size and form in efficient transportation networks, Nature399, 130 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    B. J. Enquist and K. J. Niklas, Invariant scaling rela- tions across tree-dominated communities, Nature410, 655 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    P. A. Marquet, Of predators, prey, and power laws, Science 295, 2229 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    G. B. West, J. H. Brown, and B. J. Enquist, A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology, Science276, 122 (1997)

    1997

  2. [10]

    B. J. Enquist, J. H. Brown, and G. B. West, Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density, Nature 395, 163 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    G. B. West, J. H. Brown, and B. J. Enquist, A general model for ontogenetic growth, Nature413, 628 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    B. J. Enquist and K. J. Niklas, Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants, Science 295, 1517 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    J. H. Brown, J. F. Gillooly, A. P. Allen, V. M. Savage, and G. B. West, Toward a metabolic theory of ecology, Ecology85, 1771 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    P. A. Marquet, F. A. Labra, and B. A. Maurer, Metabolic ecology: Linking individuals to ecosystems, Ecology85, 1794 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    D. W. Purves, J. W. Lichstein, N. Strigul, and S. W. Pacala, Predicting and understanding forest dynamics using a simple tractable model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 17018 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Strigul, D

    N. Strigul, D. Pristinski, D. Purves, J. Dushoff, and S. Pacala, Scaling from trees to forests: tractable macro- scopic equations for forest dynamics, Ecol. Monogr.78, 523 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    S. Mori, K. Yamaji, A. Ishida, S. G. Prokushkin, O. V. Masyagina, A. Hagihara, A. R. Hoque, R. Suwa, A. Osawa, T. Nishizono,et al., Mixed-power scaling of whole-plant respiration from seedlings to giant trees, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.107, 1447 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    J. R. Banavar, T. J. Cooke, A. Rinaldo, and A. Maritan, Form, function, and evolution of living organisms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.111, 3332 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Simini, T

    F. Simini, T. Anfodillo, M. Carrer, J. R. Banavar, and A. Maritan, Self-similarity and scaling in forest communi- ties, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.107, 7658 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Volkov, A

    I. Volkov, A. Tovo, T. Anfodillo, A. Rinaldo, A. Maritan, and J. R. Banavar, Seeing the forest for the trees through metabolic scaling, PNAS Nexus1, pgac008 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    B. J. Enquist, G. B. West, E. L. Charnov, and J. H. Brown, Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants, Nature401, 907 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    X. Xiao, J. P. O’Dwyer, and E. P. White, Comparing process-based and constraint-based approaches for mod- eling macroecological patterns, Ecology97, 1228 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    A. G. McKendrick, Applications of mathematics to med- ical problems, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2)44, 98–130 (1925)

    1925

  16. [24]

    S. A. Levin and R. T. Paine, Disturbance, patch formation, and community structure, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.71, 2744 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    Takada and Y

    T. Takada and Y. Iwasa, Size distribution dynamics of plants with interaction by shading, Ecol. Model.33, 173 (1986)

    1986

  18. [26]

    B. L. Keyfitz and N. Keyfitz, The McKendrick partial differential equation and its uses in epidemiology and 13 population study, Math. Comput. Model.26, 1 (1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    Kohyama, Simulating stationary size distribution of trees in rain forests, Ann

    T. Kohyama, Simulating stationary size distribution of trees in rain forests, Ann. Bot.68, 173 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Kohyama, Density-size dynamics of trees simulated by a one-sided competition multi-species model of rain forest stands, Ann

    T. Kohyama, Density-size dynamics of trees simulated by a one-sided competition multi-species model of rain forest stands, Ann. Bot.70, 451 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    Kohyama, Size-structured tree populations in gap- dynamic forest–the forest architecture hypothesis for the stable coexistence of species, J

    T. Kohyama, Size-structured tree populations in gap- dynamic forest–the forest architecture hypothesis for the stable coexistence of species, J. Ecol. , 131 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    Kohyama, E

    T. Kohyama, E. Suzuki, T. Partomihardjo, T. Yamada, and T. Kubo, Tree species differentiation in growth, re- cruitment and allometry in relation to maximum height in a Bornean mixed dipterocarp forest, J. Ecol.91, 797 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    J. D. Murray and J. D. Murray,Mathematical biology: II: spatial models and biomedical applications, Vol. 18 (Springer, 2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    H. C. Muller-Landau, R. S. Condit, K. E. Harms, C. O. Marks, S. C. Thomas, S. Bunyavejchewin, G. Chuyong, L. Co, S. Davies, R. Foster,et al., Comparing tropical for- est tree size distributions with the predictions of metabolic ecology and equilibrium models, Ecol. Lett.9, 589 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    O’Dwyer, J

    J. O’Dwyer, J. Lake, A. Ostling, V. Savage, and J. Green, An integrative framework for stochastic, size-structured community assembly, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.106, 6170 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    E. D. Lee, C. P. Kempes, and G. B. West, Growth, death, and resource competition in sessile organisms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, e2020424118 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Nathan and H

    R. Nathan and H. C. Muller-Landau, Spatial patterns of seed dispersal, their determinants and consequences for recruitment, Trends Ecol. Evol.15, 278 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Wiegand, X

    T. Wiegand, X. Wang, K. J. Anderson-Teixeira, N. A. Bourg, M. Cao, X. Ci, S. J. Davies, Z. Hao, R. W. Howe, W. J. Kress, J. Lian, J. Li, L. Lin, Y. Lin, K. Ma, W. Mc- Shea, X. Mi, S.-H. Su, I.-F. Sun, A. Wolf, W. Ye, and A. Huth, Consequences of spatial patterns for coexistenc...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Kalyuzhny, J

    M. Kalyuzhny, J. K. Lake, S. J. Wright, and A. M. Ostling, Pervasive within-species spatial repulsion among adult tropical trees, Science381, 563 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Bernardi, G

    D. Bernardi, G. Nicoletti, P. Padmanabha, S. Suweis, S. Azaele, S. A. Levin, A. Rinaldo, and A. Maritan, Dis- persal diversity buffers species vulnerability to local ex- tinction, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2604.26589 (2026)

    2026 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. S. Comita, S. Aguilar, R. P´ erez, S. Lao, and S. P. Hubbell, Patterns of woody plant species abundance and diversity in the seedling layer of a tropical forest, J. Veg. Sci.18, 163 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Monsi and T

    M. Monsi and T. Saeki, ¨Uber den Lichtfaktor in den Pflanzengesellschaften und seine Bedeutung f¨ ur die Stoff- produktion, Jpn. J. Bot.14, 22 (1953)

    1953

  33. [41]

    Monsi and T

    M. Monsi and T. Saeki, On the factor light in plant communities and its importance for matter production, Ann. Bot.95, 549 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    S. P. Hubbell,The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography, Monographs in Population Biology, Vol. 32 (Princeton University Press, 2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Tilman,Resource Competition and Community Struc- ture(Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1982)

    D. Tilman,Resource Competition and Community Struc- ture(Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1982)

    1982

  36. [44]

    Poorter and K

    L. Poorter and K. Kitajima, Carbohydrate storage and light requirements of tropical moist and dry forest tree species, Ecology88, 1000 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    A. L. Zhu, A. Ndiaye, R. Dahm, M. Mauclaire, and I. Boas, Africa’s Great Green Mirage? Assessing the disconnect be- tween global finance and local implementation in Africa’s Great Green Wall, Land Use Policy157, 107670 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    S. Chen, P. Poschlod, A. Antonelli, U. Liu, and J. B. Dickie, Trade-off between seed dispersal in space and time, Ecol. Lett.23, 1635 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Treep, M

    J. Treep, M. de Jager, F. Bartumeus, and M. B. Soons, Seed dispersal as a search strategy: dynamic and frag- mented landscapes select for multi-scale movement strate- gies in plants, Mov. Ecol.9, 4 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    R. K. Kobe, S. W. Pacala, J. A. Silander, and C. D. Canham, Juvenile tree survivorship as a component of shade tolerance, Ecol. Appl.5, 517 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Anfodillo, M

    T. Anfodillo, M. Carrer, F. Simini, I. Popa, J. R. Banavar, and A. Maritan, An allometry-based approach for under- standing forest structure, predicting tree-size distribution and assessing the degree of disturbance, Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20122375 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Sellan, F

    G. Sellan, F. Simini, A. Maritan, J. R. Banavar, T. de Haulleville, M. Bauters, J.-L. Doucet, H. Beeckman, and T. Anfodillo, Testing a general approach to assess the degree of disturbance in tropical forests, J. Veg. Sci. 28, 659 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    A. J. Eichenwald, J. M. Grady, J. A. Knott, Q. D. Read, J. M. Rodriguez, and S. Record, The impact of disturbance on tree size distributions in the United States, Global Ecol. Biogeogr.34, 10.1111/geb.70102 (2025)

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    W. F. Laurance, L. V. Ferreira, J. M. Rankin-de Merona, and S. G. Laurance, Rain forest fragmentation and the dynamics of Amazonian tree communities, Ecology79, 2032 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    R. M. Ewers and R. K. Didham, Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmenta- tion, Biol. Rev.81, 117 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    M. C. N´ u˜ nez-´Avila, M. Uriarte, P. A. Marquet, and J. J. Armesto, Decomposing recruitment limitation for an avian-dispersed rain forest tree in an anciently fragmented landscape, J. Ecol.101, 1439 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    D’Andrea and J

    R. D’Andrea and J. P. O’Dwyer, Competition for space in a structured landscape: The effect of seed limitation on coexistence under a tolerance-fecundity trade-off, J. Ecol.109, 1886 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Westoby, M

    M. Westoby, M. Leishman, and J. Lord, Comparative ecology of seed size and dispersal, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.351, 1309 (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    H. C. Muller-Landau, The tolerance–fecundity trade-off and the maintenance of diversity in seed size, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.107, 4242 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    D´ ıaz, J

    S. D´ ıaz, J. Kattge, J. H. C. Cornelissen, I. J. Wright, S. La- vorel, S. Dray, B. Reu, M. Kleyer, C. Wirth, I. Colin Pren- tice, E. Garnier, G. B¨ onisch, M. Westoby, H. Poorter, P. B. Reich, A. T. Moles, J. Dickie, A. N. Gillison, A. E. Zanne, J. Chave, S. Joseph Wright, S....

    2016

  51. [59]

    J. M. Levine and J. HilleRisLambers, The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity, Nature 461, 254 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    S. J. Wright, K. Kitajima, N. J. B. Kraft, P. B. Reich, I. J. Wright, D. E. Bunker, R. Condit, J. W. Dalling, S. J. Davies, S. D´ ıaz, B. M. J. Engelbrecht, K. E. Harms, S. P. Hubbell, C. O. Marks, M. C. Ruiz-Jaen, C. M. Salvador, and A. E. Zanne, Functional traits and the gro...

    2010

  53. [61]

    P. B. Adler, R. Salguero-G´ omez, A. Compagnoni, J. S. Hsu, J. Ray-Mukherjee, C. Mbeau-Ache, and M. Franco, Functional traits explain variation in plant life history strategies, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.111, 740 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Jops and J

    K. Jops and J. P. O’Dwyer, Life history complementarity and the maintenance of biodiversity, Nature618, 986 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    A. J. Bloom, F. S. Chapin, and H. A. Mooney, Resource limitation in plants-An economic analogy, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.16, 363 (1985)

    1985

  56. [64]

    F. S. Chapin, A. J. Bloom, C. B. Field, and R. H. War- ing, Plant responses to multiple environmental factors, BioScience37, 49 (1987)

    1987

  57. [65]

    M. S. Umarani, D. Wang, J. P. O’Dwyer, and R. D’Andrea, A spatial signal of niche differentiation in tropical forests, Am. Nat.203, 445 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Chesson, Mechanisms of maintenance of species diver- sity, Annu

    P. Chesson, Mechanisms of maintenance of species diver- sity, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.31, 343 (2000)

    2000

  59. [67]

    B. A. Melbourne and A. Hastings, Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity, Nature 454, 100 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    Padmanabha, G

    P. Padmanabha, G. Nicoletti, D. Bernardi, S. Suweis, S. Azaele, A. Rinaldo, and A. Maritan, Landscape and environmental heterogeneity support coexistence in com- petitive metacommunities, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.121, 10.1073/pnas.2410932121 (2024)

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    Lande, Risks of population extinction from demo- graphic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes, Am

    R. Lande, Risks of population extinction from demo- graphic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes, Am. Nat.142, 911 (1993)

    1993

  62. [70]

    C. H. Bowler, C. Weiss-Lehman, I. R. Towers, M. M. May- field, and L. G. Shoemaker, Accounting for demographic uncertainty increases predictions for species coexistence: A case study with annual plants, Ecol. Lett.25, 1618 (2022)

    2022

  63. [71]

    W. F. Laurance, T. E. Lovejoy, H. L. Vasconcelos, E. M. Bruna, R. K. Didham, P. C. Stouffer, C. Gascon, R. O. Bierregaard, S. G. Laurance, and E. Sampaio, Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investi- gation, Conserv. Biol.16, 605 (2002)

    2002

  64. [72]

    K. A. Harper, S. E. MacDonald, P. J. Burton, J. Chen, K. D. Brosofske, S. C. Saunders, E. S. Euskirchen, D. Roberts, M. S. Jaiteh, and P. Esseen, Edge influ- ence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes, Conserv. Biol.19, 768 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    A. I. Borthagaray, M. Arim, and P. A. Marquet, Con- necting landscape structure and patterns in body size distributions, Oikos121, 697 (2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    Bernardi, A

    D. Bernardi, A. Doimo, G. Nicoletti, P. Padmanabha, A. Rinaldo, S. Suweis, S. Azaele, and A. Maritan, Habi- tat heterogeneity and dispersal network structure as drivers of metacommunity dynamics, arXiv (2026), arXiv:2602.06640 [q-bio.PE]

    2026 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. S. Wright, Plant diversity in tropical forests: a review of mechanisms of species coexistence, Oecologia130, 1 (2002)

    2002

  68. [76]

    P. B. Adler, J. HilleRisLambers, P. C. Kyriakidis, Q. Guan, and J. M. Levine, Climate variability has a stabilizing effect on the coexistence of prairie grasses, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.103, 12793 (2006)

    2006

  69. [77]

    K. Jops, J. W. Dalling, and J. P. O’Dwyer, Life history is a key driver of temporal fluctuations in tropical tree abundances, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.122, e2422348122 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    S. D. Wullschleger and A. W. King, Radial variation in sap velocity as a function of stem diameter and sapwood thickness in yellow-poplar trees, Tree Physiol.20, 511 (2000)

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.