Response to comments on "productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness"

James B. Grace, Peter B. Adler, Eric W. Seabloom, Elizabeth T. Borer, Helmut Hillebrand, Yann Hautier, Andy Hector, W. Stanley Harpole, Lydia R. O'Halloran, T. Michael Anderson, Jonathan D. Bakker, Cynthia S. Brown, Yvonne M. Buckley, Scott L. Collins, Kathryn L. Cottingham, Michael J. Crawley, Ellen I. Damschen, Kendi F. Davies, Nicole M. DeCrappeo, Philip A. FayJennifer Firn, Daniel S. Gruner, Nicole Hagenah, Virginia L. Jin, Kevin P. Kirkman, Johannes M H Knops, Kimberly J. La Pierre, John G. Lambrinos, Brett A. Melbourne, Charles E. Mitchell, Joslin L. Moore, John W. Morgan, John L. Orrock, Suzanne M. Prober, Carly J. Stevens, Peter D. Wragg, Louie H. Yang

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

23 Scopus citations


Pan et al. claim that our results actually support a strong linear positive relationship between productivity and richness, whereas Fridley et al. contend that the data support a strong humped relationship. These responses illustrate how preoccupation with bivariate patterns distracts from a deeper understanding of the multivariate mechanisms that control these important ecosystem properties.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1441-c
Issue number6075
StatePublished - Mar 23 2012


Dive into the research topics of 'Response to comments on "productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness"'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this