The value of stress and limitation in an imperfect world: A reply to Körner

Christopher J. Lortie, Rob W. Brooker, Zaal Kikvidze, Ragan M. Callaway

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

42 Scopus citations


A recent perspective paper offered by Körner essentially argued that 'limitation' and 'stress' are functionally useless terms for ecology except perhaps within limited contexts such as plant physiology or agriculture. We strongly disagree, and to this end argue that, although stress is not as precise as other concepts in ecology and is probably more difficult to apply to communities than to individuals, if ecologists want to communicate in a meaningful and interesting way about the distribution and abundance of species, we have to use multi-purpose terminology that allows us to scale from reductionistic, strictly quantifiable levels of analysis to more general conceptual levels. Here, we revisit the main arguments presented against these concepts and use three lines of counter-argument to support our conclusion that limitation and stress are necessary concepts for organizing and integrating general ecological inquiry. We discuss (1) the role of interactions between individuals in changing the limitation experienced by a species, (2) the importance of delineating whether stress is being applied to individuals or to the community, and (3) the evolutionary argument that fitness is never perfect since even adapted species are likely limited to some degree by the environment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)577-580
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Vegetation Science
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 2004


  • Alpine vegetation
  • Community
  • Fitness
  • Gradient
  • Optimality
  • Physiology


Dive into the research topics of 'The value of stress and limitation in an imperfect world: A reply to Körner'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this