Explaining productivity‐diversity relationships in plants

By T. Rajaniemi. 2003

210 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81a86a3c794f1c4d1d17ce69ef5760eee3f06b51

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Root competition: beyond resource depletion (2006, background): “Other experiments produced no evidence for size-asymmetric root competition in heterogeneous soil (Blair 2001; Rajaniemi 2003a; von Wettberg & Weiner 2003).”
RESTORATION OF BUTTERFLY AND MOTH COMMUNITIES IN SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLANDS BY CATTLE GRAZING (2004, background): “The predictions of DEM are supported in numerous studies of plant diversity and vegetation structure along environmental gradients (Huston 1994, Rajaniemi 2003), but they remain largely untested for insects (but see Tscharntke 1997).”
Complementarity as a mechanism of coexistence between functional groups of grasses (2007, background): “Future field studies are needed to quantify and understand the ecological role of complementarity, especially in harsh environments with intermediate fertility where diversity does not decrease with fertilization (Gross et al. 2000; Rajaniemi 2003; Suding et al. 2005; Quétier et al. 2007).”
Strength, slope and variability of marine latitudinal gradients (2004, background): “…hypothesis is also clearly related to the scale dependence of the productivity– diversity relationship (Waide et al. 1999, Mittelbach et al. 2001, Rajaniemi 2003), suggesting a rather unimodal response of diversity to productivity at local scales and linear at regional scales (Chase & Leibold…”
Species diversity and productivity: why do results of diversity‐manipulation experiments differ from natural patterns? (2009, background): “Note that this result, which is often attributed to increased competition at higher productivities leading to more frequent competitive exclusions (Rajaniemi 2003), emerges in mature natural communities where competitive dominants tend to be present in many local plots.”
Root competition can cause a decline in diversity with increased productivity (2003, background): “Greenhouse competition experiments indicate that at least 415 Competition, productivity and diversity © 2003 British Ecological Society, Journal of Ecology, 91, 407–416 one species used in this experiment, Bromus inermis, may have size asymmetric effects in root competition (Rajaniemi 2003b).”
Light, nutrients and grazing interact to determine diatom species richness via changes to productivity, nutrient state and grazer activity (2009, background): “High nutrient levels shift resource competition to competition for light only, thus decreasing diversity (Rajaniemi 2002, 2003).”
Establishment limitation reduces species recruitment and species richness as soil resources rise (2004, background): “2000) and experiments (Bohannan & Lenski 2000; Rajaniemi 2002; Stevens & Carson 2002) have focused on how competition and predation influence the productivity–diversity relationship via effects on the rates of local extinction (Rajaniemi 2003).”
Drought‐resistant fungi control soil organic matter decomposition and its response to temperature (2011, background): “But as the resource level increases and more species meet their minimum resource requirements, other processes such as competitive exclusion (Rajaniemi, 2003) and/or topdown predatory interactions (Worm et al., 2002) may also lead to a reduction in diversity.”
Overyielding in mixed forests decreases with site productivity (2015, background): “Particular emphasis has been placed on the effect of vegetation diversity on ecosystem productivity, the so-called diversity– productivity relationship (Rajaniemi 2003).”
Size asymmetry of resource competition and the structure of plant communities (2016, background): “Their model generated a unimodal relationship between nutrient availability and species richness, despite the fact that light exploitation was assumed to be symmetric (as opposed to some citations of the model, e.g. Rajaniemi 2003).”
Strain and vegetation effects on local limiting resources explain the outcomes of biotic interactions (2010, background): “However, gradients of standing biomass are often complex and many limiting factors may co-vary (Rajaniemi, 2003; Michalet, 2006; Gross et al., 2008); thus, using community-level measurements (e.”
A guide for using functional diversity indices to reveal changes in assembly processes along ecological gradients (2013, background): “Where size-symmetric below-ground competition dominates, species with similar niches are more likely to coexist, since small differences in competitive ability do not have disproportionate effects on the outcome of competition (Rajaniemi 2003).”
Understorey diversity in southern boreal forests is regulated by productivity and its indirect impacts on resource availability and heterogeneity (2012, background): “To a degree, many species richness–ANPP hypotheses agree (Rajaniemi 2003) that the increase phase of the unimodal species richness–ANPP curve occurs because few species can tolerate extremely low resource availabilities, and as productivity increases resource requirements are met for more and more…”
Long‐term changes in abundance and diversity of macrophyte and waterfowl populations in an estuary with exotic macrophytes and improving water quality (2007, background): “Scientists have found that in terrestrial systems, plant richness varies positively with plant abundance (for example, Loreau et al. 2001; Rajaniemi 2003) or quadratically (rising then falling) as biomass increases (Chalcraft et al. 2004).”