Effects of productivity on species-area curves in herbaceous vegetation: Evidence from experimental and observational data

Oikos

Volumn 115, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 475-483

  Chiarucci, Alessandro ^a   Viciani, Daniele ^b   Winter, Christina ^c   Diekmann, Martin ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; BIOMASS; MEADOW; PLANT COMMUNITY; SPECIES RICHNESS; SPECIES-AREA RELATIONSHIP; VASCULAR PLANT;

BREMEN [GERMANY]; CENTRAL EUROPE; EURASIA; EUROPE; GERMANY; ITALY; SIENA [TUSCANY]; SOUTHERN EUROPE; TUSCANY;

TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 33751242772     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15116.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abrams, P. A. 1995. Monotonic or unimodal diversity-productivity gradients: what does competition theory predict? - Ecology 76: 2019-2027.
2. Al-Mufti, M. M., Sydes, C. L., Furness, S. B. et al. 1977. A quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. - J. Ecol. 65: 759-791.
3. Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. - J. Ecol. 9: 95-99.
4. Bruun, H. H. and Ejrnæs, R. 2006. Community-level birth rate: a missing link between ecology, evolution and diversity. - Oikos 113: 185-191.
5. Chiarucci, A., Alongi, C. and Wilson, J. B. 2004. Competitive exclusion and the no-interaction model operate simultaneously in microcosm plant communities. - J. Veg. Sci. 15: 789-796.
6. Chalcraft, D. R., Williams, J. W., Smith, M. D. et al. 2004. Scale dependence in the species richness-productivity relationship: the role of species turnover. - Ecology 85: 2701-2708.
7. Connor, E. F. and McCoy, E. D. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. - Am. Nat. 113: 791-833.
8. Désilets, P. and Houle, G. 2005. Effects of resource availability and heterogeneity on the slope of the species-area curve along a floodplain-upland gradient. - J. Veg. Sci. 16: 487-496.
9. Dupré, C., Wessberg, C. and Diekmann, M. 2002. Species richness in deciduous forests: effects of species pools and environmental variables. - J. Veg. Sci. 13: 505-516.
10. Eriksson, O. 1993. The species-pool hypothesis and plant community diversity. - Oikos 68: 371-374.
11. Gleason, H. A. 1922. On the relation between species and area. - Ecology 3: 158-162.
12. Grime, J. P. 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. - Nature 242: 344-347.
13. Herben, T. 2000. Correlation between species richness per unit area and the species pool cannot be used to demonstrate the species pool effect. - J. Veg. Sci. 11: 123-126.
14. Mittelbach, G. G., Steiner, C. F., Scheiner, S. M. et al. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? - Ecology 82: 2381-2396.
15. Oksanen, J. 1996. Is the humped relationship between species richness and biomass an artefact due to plot size? - J. Ecol. 84: 293-295.
16. Oksanen, J. 1997. The no-interaction model does not mean that interactions should not be studied. - J. Ecol. 85: 101-102.
17. Palmer, M. W. and White, P. S. 1994. Scale dependence and the species-area relationship. - Am. Nat. 144: 717-740.
18. Pärtel, M., Zobel, M., Zobel, K. et al. 1996. The species pool and its relation to species richness: evidence from Estonian plant communities. - Oikos 75: 111-117.
19. Pastor, J., Downing, A. and Erickson, H. E. 1996. Species-area curves and diversity-productivity relationships in beaver meadows of Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. - Oikos 77: 399-406.
20. Rapson, G. L., Thompson, K. and Hodgson, J. G. 1997. The humped relationship between species richness and biomass - testing its sensitivity to sample quadrat size. - J. Ecol. 85: 99-100.
21. Reilly, M. J., Wimberly, M. C. and Newell, C. L. 2006. Wildfire effects on plant species richness at multiple spatial scales in forest communities of the southern Appalachians. - J. Ecol. 94: 118-130.
22. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
23. Rosenzweig, M. L. and Abramsky, Y. Z. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? - In: Ricklefs, R. E. and Schluter, D. (eds), Species diversity in ecological communities. Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 52-65.
24. Scheiner, S. M. 2003. Six types of species-area curves. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 441-447.
25. Scheiner, S. M., Cox, S. B., Willig, M. et al. 2000. Species richness, species-area curves and Simpson's paradox. - Evol. Ecol. Res. 2: 791-802.
26. Schuster, B. and Diekmann, M. 2005. Species richness and environmental correlates in deciduous forests of northwest Germany. - For. Ecol. Manage. 206: 197-205.
27. Taylor, R. T., Aarssen, L. W. and Loehle, C. 1990. On the relationship between r/K selection and environmental carrying capacity: a new habitat templet for plant life history strategies. - Oikos 58: 239-250.
28. Tilman, D. and Pacala, S. 1993. The maintainance of species richness in plant communities. - In: Ricklefs, R. E. and Schluter, D. (eds), Species diversity in ecological communities. Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 13-25.
29. Tjørve, E. 2003. Shapes and functions of species-area curves: a review of possible models. - J. Biogeogr. 30: 827-835.
30. Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Steiner, C. F. et al. 1999. The relationships between productivity and species richness. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30: 257-300.
31. Weiher, E. 1999. The combined effect of scale and productivity on species richness. - J. Ecol. 87: 1005-1011.