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

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

23 Citations (Scopus)


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
Pages (from-to)1441-c
Issue number6075
Publication statusPublished - 23 Mar 2012
Externally publishedYes

Cite this