戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 uences the fitness of a host in a setting of interspecific competition.
2 e displacement is the most severe outcome of interspecific competition.
3 tween sympatric species are enhanced through interspecific competition.
4 loridanum alters caste ratios in response to interspecific competition.
5 microhabitat topography dramatically reduced interspecific competition.
6 actor of 2-5x, eliciting particularly strong interspecific competition.
7 s are influenced by habitat preferences, and interspecific competition.
8  less attention has been paid to the role of interspecific competition.
9  diversity, suggesting an important role for interspecific competition.
10 me experiments in how communities respond to interspecific competition.
11 ed to certain thermal niches due to the high interspecific competition.
12  development than flies without a history of interspecific competition.
13 acing counteracting evolutionary forces from interspecific competition.
14 n intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition.
15  structure can sustain a broader spectrum of interspecific competition.
16  treatments, suggesting trophic impacts from interspecific competition.
17 ntraspecific competition to be stronger than interspecific competition.
18 d measurements to be generally stronger than interspecific competition.
19 oorly matched resources, and the strength of interspecific competition.
20 artition soil P, but this does not eliminate interspecific competition.
21 corals, as well as coral polyp behaviour and interspecific competition.
22 rentiation and divergence, in order to avoid interspecific competition.
23 damentally alter the dynamics and outcome of interspecific competition.
24 vergent selection acting on traits mediating interspecific competition.
25 t alter plant performance and the outcome of interspecific competition.
26 ' performance in monoculture and outcomes of interspecific competition.
27 more generalized when they are released from interspecific competition.
28 aphic patterns in the intensity of intra- or interspecific competition [4].
29 fe histories lead to variation in intra- and interspecific competition across the annual cycle.
30 heory with empirical research to examine how interspecific competition affects energy expenditure in
31                     Here we demonstrate that interspecific competition alters both expansion speed an
32 es, such as carrion, are a source of intense interspecific competition among animal scavengers and mi
33  can reveal the mechanistic underpinnings of interspecific competition among apex predators and sugge
34                Fossil evidence suggests that interspecific competition among carnivores was relativel
35 host, and that energy is limited, intra- and interspecific competition among castrators is generally
36  alvi wkB2 T6SSs do not significantly impact interspecific competition among core gut bacteria.
37 munities is understudied relative to that of interspecific competition among prey.
38                        Its structure reduces interspecific competition and allows ample but modular c
39                            Under both direct interspecific competition and apparent competition betwe
40  the importance of understanding the role of interspecific competition and disturbance when studying
41  plant performance, changed the intensity of interspecific competition and even reversed whether plan
42 nferior competitors that mitigate effects of interspecific competition and facilitate long-term persi
43 e interplay between environmental filtering, interspecific competition and habitat specialization pla
44 r-free population subject to only negligible interspecific competition and human disturbance we found
45 ivores by increasing the probability of both interspecific competition and human-carnivore conflict.
46  Among carnivores, niche overlap can trigger interspecific competition and intraguild predation, whil
47  of repeated Homo range expansions driven by interspecific competition and made possible by recurrent
48 nary time that omits explicit mechanisms for interspecific competition and other microevolutionary pr
49 ences as well as biotic dependencies such as interspecific competition and predation.
50 overlap between species to detect changes in interspecific competition and predator-prey interactions
51  host-microbe interactions, thereby reducing interspecific competition and promoting the coexistence
52 ith a version of the Lotka-Volterra model of interspecific competition and show that habitat destruct
53 asy baobabs may have been influenced by both interspecific competition and the geological history of
54 ronmental adaptation, soil nutrient cycling, interspecific competition, and biological invasions.
55  in understanding territoriality, intra- and interspecific competition, and contact rates that influe
56 a large-scale framework for species arrival, interspecific competition, and dietary ecology.
57 s is not easy due to the fast invasion rate, interspecific competition, and pesticide resistance.
58 O(2) is affected significantly by intra- and interspecific competition, and that the elevated CO(2) r
59 rmined chiefly by the autecology of species, interspecific competition, and the diversity of resource
60 he trade-off between foraging efficiency and interspecific competition, and underline niche partition
61  from top-down control, leading to increased interspecific competition at the herbivore trophic level
62 erbivore species such that the potential for interspecific competition at this level was high.
63 on non-harvested resources, and reducing the interspecific competition between harvested and non-harv
64  argued about the commonness and strength of interspecific competition between insect herbivores, but
65 in yield on a given land area due to reduced interspecific competition between intercrops.
66 havioural interactions are key components of interspecific competition between predators, yet these a
67 fitness of different consumer species and on interspecific competition between them are not clearly u
68 o demonstrate that plasticity in response to interspecific competition between two aquatic plants all
69 -mediated and above-ground intraspecific and interspecific competition between two species of Limnant
70  When tested individually (in the absence of interspecific competition), both parasitoid species had
71         Thus coexistence is promoted by weak interspecific competition but there is a tension between
72 o probe the mechanisms regulating intra- and interspecific competition, but the significance of this
73 zation in response to both intraspecific and interspecific competition, but this effect was offset by
74 ngth of additive and non-additive intra- and interspecific competition by manipulating densities of a
75                       Species can respond to interspecific competition by segregating along different
76  our study highlights multiple ways in which interspecific competition can alter selective regimes, c
77         Theoretical models suggest that such interspecific competition can alter the speed of expansi
78                                              Interspecific competition can drive niche partitioning a
79 ta from a wide range of ecosystems show that interspecific competition can drive variation in ecologi
80                      Yet, whether intra- and interspecific competition can have non-additive effects
81                                              Interspecific competition can play a key role in structu
82                             Whilst increased interspecific competition can result in coexisting speci
83 competitors is ambiguous, as while increased interspecific competition can result in the species havi
84 specific driver of habitat selection, namely interspecific competition, can vary at different spatial
85 actions between species-shared infection and interspecific competition-combine to determine community
86 y shows how ecology can confound taxonomy if interspecific competition constrains size diversificatio
87                  In contrast, for blue tits, interspecific competition contributes as much as intrasp
88  particular host behaviours, cross-immunity, interspecific competition) could be affected by traits t
89                          The outcome of this interspecific competition depended on host temporal vari
90                      We conclude that either interspecific competition does not affect the sexual siz
91 staneum and Tribolium confusum, we show that interspecific competition dramatically slows expansion a
92  experimental ponds, we demonstrate that (i) interspecific competition drives rapid genotypic change,
93        Specifically, flies with a history of interspecific competition evolved under fall conditions
94  Here, we show that evolution in response to interspecific competition feeds back to change the cours
95 pts to adjust this paradigm, suggesting that interspecific competition for food is probably less impo
96 xpand our understanding of the mechanisms of interspecific competition for iron in microbial communit
97 70s and early 1980s led to the paradigm that interspecific competition for limited seed resources is
98 reased and decreased the negative effects of interspecific competition for parasitized and non-parasi
99                                              Interspecific competition for resources does occur, but
100 ast coast of Australia under climate change, interspecific competition for resources may increase, wi
101 istently influenced dynamics in systems with interspecific competition for the entire duration of the
102                The consequences of increased interspecific competition from a model alien fish Leucis
103 ge Pleistocene carnivorans imply intensified interspecific competition, given that tooth fracture ris
104 anogaster populations in the fall, after all interspecific competition had ceased.
105 ment of the relative strengths of intra- and interspecific competition has increased in recent years
106                                     Although interspecific competition has long been recognised as a
107 pothesis that species' ranges are limited by interspecific competition has motivated decades of debat
108                             The intensity of interspecific competition, hindering enhanced dimorphism
109                                              Interspecific competition, however, is thought to limit
110       Consistent with the predictions of the interspecific competition hypothesis, multiple lines of
111 as a proxy for the important variable of the interspecific competition hypothesis.
112 ready described that are consistent with the interspecific competition hypothesis.
113 re precise form, the higher the intensity of interspecific competition in an assemblage of species, t
114 including age-specific effects of intra- and interspecific competition in density-dependence models i
115 he relative strength of intraspecific versus interspecific competition in dominance hierarchies.
116 r guild is a poor proxy for the intensity of interspecific competition in insular assemblages.
117                                      Intense interspecific competition in its native Argentina constr
118 nomists and likely reflects uniquely intense interspecific competition in the East African carnivore
119 ative species potentially increase levels of interspecific competition in the receiving environment.
120     Aedes aegypti was negatively affected by interspecific competition in the wet season.
121 ds and assessed the evidence for the role of interspecific competition in these displacements.
122                                We found that interspecific competition increased selection on growth
123           Non-additive effects of intra- and interspecific competition influenced some response varia
124 mechanism by which the perceived pressure of interspecific competition influences the transition from
125                   In experimental studies of interspecific competition, investigators often evaluate
126 was stronger at low rainfall, as expected if interspecific competition is a predominant driver.
127 s was projected to increase, indicating that interspecific competition is likely to play an important
128 size suggests that character displacement or interspecific competition is not responsible for these p
129 g part of the temperature performance curve, interspecific competition is predicted to increase.
130           Ecologists have proposed that when interspecific competition is reduced, competition within
131  support the pathogen, support it jointly if interspecific competition is relatively weak, interspeci
132  is linked to the species-level pattern that interspecific competition led to most frequent extinctio
133 s are diminished, population consequences of interspecific competition may become apparent, especiall
134 propose a new hypothesis that adaptations to interspecific competition may help to explain difference
135 ulse of populations that are challenged with interspecific competition may result in a multigeneratio
136                    Classic theory shows that interspecific competition may select for traits that inc
137                                              Interspecific competition may thus be a pervasive force
138  as niche expansion following a reduction in interspecific competition, may prompt invasion success,
139 ting range limits of species, but showed how interspecific competition might slow the advance of an i
140 ioural constraints-such as trait-matching or interspecific competition-might limit the extent to whic
141 he effects of rapid evolution in response to interspecific competition on subsequent ecological and e
142               The decrease in the effects of interspecific competition on the fitness of killifish an
143 her deterministic- (i.e., habitat filtering, interspecific competition) or stochastic-driven processe
144 greater influence on trait distribution than interspecific competition, particularly in nonnatives.
145 pport for four primary hypothesized drivers (interspecific competition/predation, habitat complexity,
146 udy of plant-insect interactions, dispersal, interspecific competition, predator-prey interactions, a
147 r results provide experimental evidence that interspecific competition promotes the transition from i
148                                              Interspecific competition reduces resource availability
149  the extent to which this plasticity affects interspecific competition remains unclear.
150 lative effects of intraspecific competition, interspecific competition, resource abundance and resour
151                                    Moreover, interspecific competition resulted in an increase in the
152                                     Further, interspecific competition resulted in more variable spat
153  models to argue against the hypothesis that interspecific competition shapes species' elevational ra
154   In contrast to the common expectation that interspecific competition should drive the evolution of
155 toid species exploited hosts simultaneously, interspecific competition significantly decreased the nu
156                                              Interspecific competition significantly increased rates
157                        Multiple links exist: interspecific competition slows decomposition in more di
158 ess of intraspecific competition relative to interspecific competition that inherently slows or even
159  declines in food availability and increased interspecific competition to facilitate first access to
160 ection in the presence and absence of strong interspecific competition using a greenhouse experiment
161 cies, and few observed comparisons indicated interspecific competition was an important factor in pre
162 loying some well-known general properties of interspecific competition, we elaborate a theoretical fr
163 tacommunity-level extinctions likely relaxed interspecific competition, which could explain the absen
164 s: whether invasion will result in increased interspecific competition, which would result in negativ
165  guarding the burial site due to the risk of interspecific competition; while dead conspecifics, rega
166 ster were either exposed, or not exposed, to interspecific competition with an invasive competitor, Z
167  we conclude that female M. sexta ignore the interspecific competition with beetles and oviposit deli
168 edundant species, suggesting that increasing interspecific competition with decreasing productivity r
169 ll groups along the gradient and manipulated interspecific competition with flies by heating carcasse
170  species at higher temperatures, compared to interspecific competition with just the range shifter.
171 se stabilized coexistence, which intensified interspecific competition within predator-free refuges a
172    Moreover, shrub facilitation mediates the interspecific competition within the associated annual c
173 r model made two predictions: beetles facing interspecific competition would experience (1) lower phy

 
Page Top