Patterns of species density and productivity at different spatial scales in herbaceous plant communities

By K. Gross, M. Willig, L. Gough, R. Inouye, S. Cox. 2000

281 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/57da3730a1fa2c0fd33f55986105eb979cbbc2a2

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

GEOGRAPHICAL ECOLOGY AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL: PERSPECTIVES ON THE DIVERSITY OF NEW WORLD BATS (2002, background): “Studies of the productivity–diversity relationship offer a good example (Pastor et al. 1996, Waide et al. 1999, Gross et al. 2000, Mittlebach et al. 2001).”
Beta diversity and the scale‐dependence of the productivity‐diversity relationship: a test in the Californian serpentine flora (2006, background): “Although such results are not uncommon (Waide et al. 1999; Gross et al. 2000), it is possible that using a more localized measure of productivity, such as biomass, would have revealed significant relationships at one or both of these scales.”
Resource quantity, not resource heterogeneity, maintains plant diversity (2002, background): “…of light in governing a widespread but paradoxical pattern: plant species richness falls as soil resource availability and productivity rise (Grime 1973; Tilman 1982; Rosenzweig & Abramsky 1993; Tilman & Pacala 1993; Waide et al. 1999; Gough et al. 2000; Gross et al. 2000; Mittelbach et al. 2001).”
Bacterial diversity patterns along a gradient of primary productivity (2003, background): “For example, the geographical scale (e.g. local vs. regional) and ecological scale (e.g. within vs. among communities) of studies often influences patterns even within the same taxonomic group (Waide et al. 1999; Gross et al. 2000).”
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SCALE-DEPENDENT ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN BATS AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE (2005, background): “This study corroborates theoretical and empirical findings that ecological patterns depend greatly on focal scale (Allen and Starr 1982, Kolasa and Pickett 1991, Lyons and Willig 1999, Waide et al. 1999, Gross et al. 2000, Willig et al. 2003a, Graham and Knight 2004).”
CYCLIC ASSEMBLY TRAJECTORIES AND SCALE‐DEPENDENT PRODUCTIVITY–DIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS (2004, background): “One manner in which scale can affect productivity–diversity relations occurs when spatial focus is varied, namely the spatial scale at which diversity data are measured and aggregated (Gross et al. 2000, Scheiner et al. 2000, Chase and Leibold 2002).”
Complementarity as a mechanism of coexistence between functional groups of grasses (2007, background): “This result is also supported by field observations in harsh environments where diversity does not decrease with fertilization (Gross et al. 2000; Suding et al. 2005).”
WHAT IS THE OBSERVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIES RICHNESS AND PRODUCTIVITY (2001, background): “The studies of ter Heerdt et al. (1991) and Gross et al. (2000) also show hump-shaped relationships when comparing species richness across grasslands, but no hump within a grassland (but see Grytnes 2000).”
A comparison of the species–time relationship across ecosystems and taxonomic groups (2006, background): “…will mean that in cross-site comparisons of species richness researchers will need to correct their richness estimates to a single time-scale in the same manner that these studies correct their diversity estimates to a single spatial scale (Inouye 1998, Gross et al. 2000, Scheiner et al. 2000).”
The effects of the frog Eleutherodactylus coqui on invertebrates and ecosystem processes at two scales in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico (2003, background): “Since processes in nature are sensitive to spatial scale, we assumed some processes might be observable at one scale and not at another (e.g. Gross et al. 2000, Stohlgren et al. 1999).”
Contrasting Relationships between Precipitation and Species Richness in Space and Time (2007, background): “The influence of resource availability on species richness is a classic problem in community ecology (Connell and Orias 1964, Grime 1979, Tilman 1988, Huston 1994), involving fundamental questions about how species interactions regulate diversity.”
Interactive effects of diversity, nutrients and elevated CO2 on experimental plant communities (2002, background): “Similarly, the spatial scale of analysis – how the data are aggregated – can influence the form of the relationship between species richness and productivity (Gross et al. 2000, Mittelbach et al. 2001).”
Invasion in space and time: non‐native species richness and relative abundance respond to interannual variation in productivity and diversity (2004, background): “Thus, positive correlations are expected between ANPP and species richness; however, at these sites the relationship between ANPP and species richness is highly variable in both space and time, and is most often non-significant (Gross et al. 2000, J. Drake et al., unpubl. data).”