Response to Comments on “Productivity Is a Poor Predictor of Plant Species Richness”

Grace, J.B. and Adler, P.B. and Seabloom, E. and Borer, E.T. and Hillebrand, H. and Hautier, Y. and Hector, A. and Harpole, W.S. and O’Halloran, L.R. and Anderson, T.M. and Bakker, J.D. and Brown, C.S. and Buckley, Y. and Collins, S.L. and Cottingham, K.L. and Crawley, M.J. and Damschen, E.I. and Davies, K.F. and DeCrappeo, N.M. and Fay, P.A. and Firn, J. and Gruner, D. and Hagenah, N. and Jin, V.L. and Kirkham, K.P. and Knops, J. and La Pierre, K.J. and Lambrinos, J. and Li, W. and Melbourne, B.A. and Mitchell, C.E. and Moore, J. and Morgan, J. and Orrock, J. and Prober, S. and Stevens, Carly and Wragg, P. and Yang, L.H. (2012) Response to Comments on “Productivity Is a Poor Predictor of Plant Species Richness”. Science, 335 (6075). p. 1441. ISSN 0036-8075

Abstract

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.