Scale‐dependent relationships between tree species richness and ecosystem function in forests

By Ryan A. Chisholm, H. Muller‐Landau, Kassim Abdul Rahman, D. Bebber, Y. Bin, Stephanie A. Bohlman, Norman A. Bourg, J. Brinks, S. Bunyavejchewin, N. Butt and 55 more. 2013

337 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b69a016907091232cfdfbdf6f0061c9e2188177

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

CTFS‐ForestGEO: a worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global change (2015, background): “Characterize spatial variation in biomass within sites in relation to environmental gradients and species diversity (Valencia et al., 2009; Chisholm et al., 2013); detect directional changes in C stocks (Chave et al., 2008; Muller-Landau et al., 2014); calibrate and evaluate models of biomass based…”
Abiotic and biotic drivers of biomass change in a Neotropical forest (2017, background): “The relative contribution of different drivers on demographic biomass processes may vary with the spatial and organizational scale considered (Chisholm et al. 2013).”
Positive species diversity and above‐ground biomass relationships are ubiquitous across forest strata despite interference from overstorey trees (2017, methodology): “We used above-ground biomass stocks to approximate productivity because productivity is strongly correlated with biomass in forest ecosystems after accounting for the effects of stand age (Chisholm et al. 2013; Michaletz et al. 2014; Jenkins 2015).”
Mangrove diversity enhances plant biomass production and carbon storage in Hainan island, China (2021, background): “Studies of diversity– productivity relationships (DPRs) have been conducted in various ecosystems over the last two decades, including tropical forests (Poorter et al., 2015), temperate forests (Chisholm et al., 2013) and grasslands (Fraser et al., 2015).”
Designing forest biodiversity experiments: general considerations illustrated by a new large experiment in subtropical China (2014, background): “standing biomass and associated diversity of faunistic groups) and processes (e.g. litter decomposition, herbivory, productivity; Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Scherer-Lorenzen 2013; Chisholm et al. 2013).”
Above‐ground biomass is driven by mass‐ratio effects and stand structural attributes in a temperate deciduous forest (2018, background): “, 2013; Paquette & Messier, 2011), although this relationship appears to be confined to relatively small spatial scales (Chisholm et al., 2013; Poorter et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2014).”
Does functional trait diversity predict above‐ground biomass and productivity of tropical forests? Testing three alternative hypotheses (2015, background): “…in both grasslands and forests have found positive effects of species richness on biomass (Tilman, Wedin & Knops 1996; Tilman et al. 2001; Cardinale et al. 2007; Zhang, Chen & Reich 2012; Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Vil a et al. 2013), though plot size may affect these results (Chisholm et al. 2013).”
Biodiversity and climate determine the functioning of neotropical forests. (2017, background): “Most large-scale studies that looked at diversity effects ignored confounding effects of environment (e.g., Asase, Asitoakor, & Ekpe, 2012; Chisholm et al., 2013) or forest structure (e.g., Baker et al., 2009; Finegan et al., 2015).”
Parameterization of biodiversity–productivity relationship and its scale dependency using georeferenced tree‐level data (2019, background): “Meanwhile, our findings also provided an explanation for previous discoveries of relatively weak or inconsistent BPRs at large spatial grains with an area of 1.00 ha or above (Chisholm et al., 2013; Poorter et al., 2015; Sullivan et al., 2017).”