Advertisement

Abstract

Tredennick et al. criticize one of our statistical analyses and emphasize the low explanatory power of models relating productivity to diversity. These criticisms do not detract from our key findings, including evidence consistent with the unimodal constraint relationship predicted by the humped-back model and evidence of scale sensitivities in the form and strength of the relationship.
Tredennick et al. (1), among them many contributors to the original Adler et al. study (2), argue that our findings (3) align closely with those of Adler et al. once their criticisms (described below) are addressed. This is not the case. Tredennick et al. fail to acknowledge key findings of ours that remain at odds with those of Adler et al., including (i) a significantly concave-down, global-extent relationship between productivity and richness; (ii) a significantly concave-down, global-extent quantile regression, consistent with the constraint prediction of the humped-back model (HBM); and (iii) our finding that patterns consistent with the (HBM appear more evident when a broad range of productivity is sampled.
Tredennick et al. present three main criticisms of our study: (i) the analyses of the within-site productivity-diversity relationship should have included sample “grid” as a random effect, thereby accounting for our nested sampling design; (ii) our analyses focused too much on the significance of the quadratic term and not enough on the limited explanatory power of the models; and (iii) our figure 2A (3) was “misleading” and should have included a line representing the mixed-effects model for the global-extent relationship. We address each of these in turn.
(i) We agree that including “grid” as a random effect within mixed-effects models would be a reasonable approach. In our within-site analyses, we intentionally replicated the within-site analyses of Adler et al., who did not accommodate the nestedness inherent to their sampling design. In hindsight, we regret not including the results of mixed-effects models for our within-site analyses in the supplementary materials, as we did for all other analyses. We made our data publicly available, which enabled Tredennick et al. to conduct analyses of their own, finding that 8 (29%) rather than 19 (69%) of the 28 within-site analyses yielded a significant concave-down relationship when “grid” is included as a random effect. Crucially, these revised analyses by Tredennick et al. have no effect on the global models we presented that form the main conclusion of the study. Also, thanks to Tredennick et al. making their data and analyses publicly available, we found that the 8 sites that did exhibit a significantly concave-down relationship in their analyses encompassed a significantly larger range of productivity (on the log10 scale) than the 13 sites where no association was found (permutation test on the difference in mean productivity; 9999 permutations; Z score = 2.09; P = 0.039). Moreover, the probability of detecting a concave-down relationship (i.e., significant quadratic term) over no relationship using the mixed-effects modeling approach tended to increase with increasing biomass range (logistic regression; residual deviance = 22.6 on 19 df; P = 0.078).
(ii) We recognize that regressions modeling the mean trend between productivity and richness yield limited explanatory power, and stated so in our Report (3). We suggest that Tredennick et al.’s focus on the mean trend is misplaced because, provided one samples a sufficiently broad range of productivity, the HBM predicts a constraint relationship, whereby richness is constrained to low levels at very low and very high productivity. Our study provided evidence of this, in the form of a significantly concave-down, global-extent quantile regression (both with and without random effects included). Adler et al. also tested for such a constraint relationship (without random effects) but failed to detect it, possibly because of limits to their sampling (3). For our analyses of mean trends, we focused on the form of the relationship, and hence the significance of the quadratic term, because this—not explanatory power—lies at the heart of the debate surrounding the HBM (4, 5). Our sampling design and sampling scope allowed us to test the sensitivity of the form of the relationship to varying sampling grains and extents.
(iii) We formatted our figure 2A (3) with the objective of making it directly comparable to the results presented by Adler et al. (2), specifically their figure 2, and their global-extent regression, which was displayed in their figure 3. Adler et al. did not account for nested sampling structure in any of their analyses (i.e., using mixed-effects models), including within their global-extent analysis that yielded a significantly concave-down relationship. We therefore opted to show our analogous regression results in figure 2A (3). We showed the results of our mixed-effects model for the global relationship in figure S1 (3).
We encourage future research to (i) explore why low species richness (per unit area) is found at the extreme ends of the productivity gradient and (ii) determine the processes that suppress species richness below its potential at intermediate levels of productivity.

References

1
Tredennick A. T., Adler P. B., Grace J. B., Harpole W. S., Borer E. T., Seabloom E. W., Anderson T. M., Bakker J. D., Biederman L. A., Brown C. S., Buckley Y. M., Chu C., Collins S., Crawley M. J., Fay P. A., Firn J., Gruner D. S., Hagenah N., Hautier Y., Hector A., Hillebrand H., Kirkman K., Knops J. M. H., Laungani R., Lind E. M., MacDougall A. S., McCulley R. L., Mitchell C. E., Moore J. L., Morgan J. W., Orrock J. L., Peri P. L., Prober S. M., Risch A. C., Schütz M., Speziale K. L., Standish R. J., Sullivan L. L., Wardle G. M., Williams R. J., Yang L. H., Comment on “Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness”. Science 351, 457 (2016).
2
Adler P. B., Seabloom E. W., Borer E. T., Hillebrand H., Hautier Y., Hector A., Harpole W. S., O’Halloran L. R., Grace J. B., Anderson T. M., Bakker J. D., Biederman L. A., Brown C. S., Buckley Y. M., Calabrese L. B., Chu C. J., Cleland E. E., Collins S. L., Cottingham K. L., Crawley M. J., Damschen E. I., Davies K. F., DeCrappeo N. M., Fay P. A., Firn J., Frater P., Gasarch E. I., Gruner D. S., Hagenah N., Hille Ris Lambers J., Humphries H., Jin V. L., Kay A. D., Kirkman K. P., Klein J. A., Knops J. M., La Pierre K. J., Lambrinos J. G., Li W., MacDougall A. S., McCulley R. L., Melbourne B. A., Mitchell C. E., Moore J. L., Morgan J. W., Mortensen B., Orrock J. L., Prober S. M., Pyke D. A., Risch A. C., Schuetz M., Smith M. D., Stevens C. J., Sullivan L. L., Wang G., Wragg P. D., Wright J. P., Yang L. H., Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science 333, 1750–1753 (2011).
3
Fraser L. H., Pither J., Jentsch A., Sternberg M., Zobel M., Askarizadeh D., Bartha S., Beierkuhnlein C., Bennett J. A., Bittel A., Boldgiv B., Boldrini I. I., Bork E., Brown L., Cabido M., Cahill J., Carlyle C. N., Campetella G., Chelli S., Cohen O., Csergo A. M., Díaz S., Enrico L., Ensing D., Fidelis A., Fridley J. D., Foster B., Garris H., Goheen J. R., Henry H. A., Hohn M., Jouri M. H., Klironomos J., Koorem K., Lawrence-Lodge R., Long R., Manning P., Mitchell R., Moora M., Müller S. C., Nabinger C., Naseri K., Overbeck G. E., Palmer T. M., Parsons S., Pesek M., Pillar V. D., Pringle R. M., Roccaforte K., Schmidt A., Shang Z., Stahlmann R., Stotz G. C., Sugiyama S., Szentes S., Thompson D., Tungalag R., Undrakhbold S., van Rooyen M., Wellstein C., Wilson J. B., Zupo T., Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness. Science 349, 302–305 (2015).
4
Grime J. P., Control of species density in herbaceous vegetation. J. Environ. Manage. 1, 151–167 (1973).
5
Fraser L. H., Jentsch A., Sternberg M., What drives plant species diversity? A global distributed test of the unimodal relationship between herbaceous species richness and plant biomass. J. Veg. Sci. 25, 1160–1166 (2014).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Science
Volume 351 | Issue 6272
29 January 2016

Submission history

Received: 16 November 2015
Accepted: 17 December 2015
Published in print: 29 January 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Jason Pither* [email protected]
Department of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC, Canada.
Lauchlan H. Fraser
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada.
Anke Jentsch
Department of Disturbance Ecology, BayCEER, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
Marcelo Sternberg
Department of Molecular Biology and Ecology of Plants, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Martin Zobel
Department of Botany, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
James Cahill
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Carl Beierkuhnlein
Department of Biogeography, Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
Sándor Bartha
Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Vácrátót, Hungary.
School of Plant Biology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Jonathan A. Bennett
Department of Botany, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Bazartseren Boldgiv
Ecology Group, Department of Biology, National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Leslie R. Brown
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa.
Marcelo Cabido
Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Giandiego Campetella
School of Biosciences and Veterinary Medicine, Plant Diversity and Ecosystems Management Unit, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Cameron N. Carlyle
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Stefano Chelli
School of Biosciences and Veterinary Medicine, Plant Diversity and Ecosystems Management Unit, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Anna Mária Csergő
School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Sandra Diaz
Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), National Scientific and Technical Research Council and Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Lucas Enrico
Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), National Scientific and Technical Research Council and Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
David Ensing
Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Alessandra Fidelis
Departamento de Botânica, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil.
Heath W. Garris
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada.
Hugh A. L. Henry
Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Maria Höhn
Department of Botany, Faculty of Horticultural Science, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary.
John Klironomos
Department of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, BC, Canada.
Kadri Koorem
Department of Botany, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Rachael Lawrence-Lodge
Department of Botany, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Peter Manning
Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Germany.
Randall J. Mitchell
Department of Biology, University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA.
Mari Moora
Department of Botany, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Valério D. Pillar
Department of Ecology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Gisela C. Stotz
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Shu-ichi Sugiyama
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Science, Hirosaki University, Aomori, Japan.
Szilárd Szentes
Institute of Plant Production, Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Radnaakhand Tungalag
Ecology Group, Department of Biology, National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Camilla Wellstein
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy.
Talita Zupo
Departamento de Botânica, UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil.

Notes

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Article Usage
Altmetrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.

Cited by

  1. Environment is more relevant than spatial structure as a driver of regional variation in tropical tree community richness and composition, Plant Ecology & Diversity, 11, 1, (27-40), (2018).https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2018.1473520
    Crossref
Loading...

View Options

View options

PDF format

Download this article as a PDF file

Download PDF

Get Access

Log in to view the full text

AAAS ID LOGIN

AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.

Log in via OpenAthens.
Log in via Shibboleth.
More options

Purchase digital access to this article

Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.

Purchase this issue in print

Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.

Media

Figures

Multimedia

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share on social media

(0)eLetters

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Log In to Submit a Response

No eLetters have been published for this article yet.