Evaluating support for the resource-ratio hypothesis: A reply to Wilson et al.

T. E. Miller, J. H. Burns, P. Munguia, E. L. Walters, J. M. Kneitel, P. M. Richards, N. Mouquet, H. L. Buckley

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We reviewed 1,333 papers that cite Tilman (1980, 1982) and test specific predictions of the resource-ratio hypothesis (RRH). The primary conclusions of our article (Miller et al. 2005) were (1) that relatively few articles that cite Tilman’s publications (1980, 1982) provide well-designed tests of predictions of RRH; (2) that most of these tests were conducted in labs or experimental microcosms and involved primary producers in freshwater systems; (3) that overall, the majority of the well-conducted experiments do support RRH; and (4) that many of the predictions of RRH have been insufficiently tested to allow generalization, especially predictions related to resource supply and consumption rates. We encouraged further studies on RRH, especially in natural systems.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)707-708
Number of pages2
JournalAmerican Naturalist
Volume169
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2007
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Competition
  • Consumer-resource theory
  • Literature survey
  • R*
  • Species interactions

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating support for the resource-ratio hypothesis: A reply to Wilson et al.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this