Further clarifying the competition–performance relation: reply to D. W. Johnson et al. (2012)

In their commentary, D. W. Johnson, Johnson, and Roseth (2012) provided some laudatory statements about our article, but they also expressed a number of concerns. The concerns focus on the following issues: types and definitions of competition, our choice of control group, the nature of performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, the comprehensiveness of the opposing processes model, and performance-approach goals and constructive competition. We respond to each of these issues in turn and conclude with a statement regarding working to build an integrative model of the competition–performance relation (and beyond).

Response to comment on “The response of vegetation on the Andean flank in western Amazonia to Pleistocene climate change” – M.L. Cárdenas et al., Science 331, 1055 (25 February 2011)”.

Puyasena et al. question our interpretation of climate-driven vegetation change on the Andean flank in western Amazonia during the middle Pleistocene and suggest that the use of Podocarpus spp. as a proxy of past climate change should be reassessed. We defend our assertion that vegetation change at the Erazo study site was predominantly driven by climate change due to concomitant changes recorded by multiple taxa in the fossil record.