Forest productivity and tree diversity relationships depend on ecological context within mid-Atlantic and Appalachian forests (USA)

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 261, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1315-1324

  Belote, R Travis ^a   Prisley, Steve ^b   Jones, Robert H ^c   Fitzpatrick, Matthew ^d   de Beurs, Kirsten ^e  

^a Wilderness Society Bozeman   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA); Land use; MODIS; Net primary productivity; Productivity diversity; Species richness

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS; BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DATA SETS; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; ECOREGIONS; ECOSYSTEM PRODUCTIVITY; FOREST INVENTORY ANALYSIS; FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS; FOREST PRODUCTIVITY; FOREST TYPE; LAND MANAGEMENTS; MANAGEMENT ZONES; MODIS; NET PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY; SCALE OF OBSERVATION; SPECIES RICHNESS; TREE DIVERSITY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; LAND USE; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; PHYTOPLANKTON; RADIOMETERS; REMOTE SENSING;

PRODUCTIVITY;

BIODIVERSITY; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DATA SET; DATABASE; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; ECOREGION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GIS; HUMAN ACTIVITY; LAND MANAGEMENT; LAND USE CHANGE; MODIS; NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION; SPECIES RICHNESS;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; GIS; LAND USE; PRODUCTIVITY; RADIOMETRY; REMOTE SENSING; USA;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 79951943599     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Belote R.T., Sanders N.J., Jones R.H. Disturbance alters local-regional richness relationships in Appalachian forests. Ecology 2009, 90:2940-2947.
2. Cade B.S., Noon B.R. A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2003, 1:412-420.
3. Cardinale B.J., Hillebrand H., Harpole W.S., Gross K., Ptacnik R. Separating the influence of resource 'availability' from resource 'imbalance' on productivity-diversity relationships. Ecology Letters 2009, 12:475-487.
4. Chase J.M., Leibold M.A. Spatial scale dictates the productivity-diversity relationship. Nature 2002, 416:427-430.
5. Clark J.S. Individuals and the variation needed for high species diversity in forest trees. Science 2010, 327:1129-1132.
6. Clawson R.G., Lockaby B.G., Rummer B. Changes in production and nutrient cycling across a wetness gradient within a floodplain forest. Ecosystems 2001, 4:126-138.
7. Currie D.J., Mittelbach G.G., Cornell H.V., Field R., Guégan J.-F., Hawkins B.A., Kaufman D.M., Kerr J.T., Oberdorff T., O'Brien E., Turner J.R.G. Predictions and tests of climate-based hypotheses of broad-scale variation in taxonomic richness. Ecology Letters 2004, 7:1121-1134.
8. Francis A.P., Currie D.J. Global patterns of tree species richness in moist forests: another look. Oikos 1998, 81:598-602.
9. Fukami T., Morin P.J. Productivity-biodiversity relationships depend on the history of community assembly. Nature 2003, 424:423-426.
10. Gaston K.J. Biodiversity and extinction: macroecological patterns and people. Progress in Physical Geography 2006, 30:258-269.
11. Gillman L.N., Wright S.D. The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants: a critical assessment. Ecology 2006, 87:1234-1243.
12. Grime J.P. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 1973, 242:344-347.
13. Harrison S., Grace J.B. Biogeographic affinity contributes to our understanding of productivity-richness relationships at regional and local scales. American Naturalist 2007, 170:S5-S15.
14. Harrison S., Davies K.F., Safford H.D., Viers J.H. Beta diversity and the scale-dependence of the productivity-diversity relationship: a test in the Californian serpentine flora. Journal of Ecology 2006, 94:110-117.
15. Heinsch F.A., Reeves M., Bowker C.F., Votava P., Kang S., Milesi C., Zhao M., Glassy J., Nemani R.R. User's Guide: GPP and NPP (MOD17A2/A3) Products, NASA MODIS Land Algorithm 2003.
16. Hijmans R.J., Cameron S.E., Parra J.L., Jones P.G., Jarvis A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 2005, 25:1965-1978.
17. Hillebrand H., Cardinal B.J. A critique of meta-analyses and the productivity-diversity relationship. Ecology 2010, 91:2545-2549.
18. Homeier J., Breckle S.-W., Gunter S., Rollenbeck R., Leuschner C. Tree diversity, forest structure and productivity along altitudinal and topgraphic gradients in species-rich Ecuadorian montane rain forest. Biotropica 2010, 42:140-148.
19. Hook D.D. Waterlogging tolerance of lowland tree species of the South. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 1984, 8:136-149.
20. Huston M. Biological diversity, soils, and economics. Science 1993, 262:1676-1680.
21. Huston M. Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species on Changing Landscapes 1994, Cambridge University Press.
22. Huston M.A., Wolverton S. The global distribution of net primary production: resolving the paradox. Ecological Monongraphs 2009, 79:343-377.
23. Imhoff M.L., Bounoua L., Ricketts T., Loucks C., Harriss R., Lawrence W.T. Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 2004, 429:870-873.
24. Koenker R. Quantreg: Quantile Regression. R Package Version 4. 44 2009, http://cran.r-project.org/package=quantreg.
25. Laanisto L., Urbas P., Pärtel M. Why does the unimodal species richness-productivity relationship not apply to woody species: a lack of clonality or a legacy of tropical evolutionary history?. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2008, 17:320-326.
26. Laughlin D.C., Moore M.M. Climate-induced temporal variation in the productivity-diversity relationship. Oikos 2009, 118:897-902.
27. Lavers C.P., Field R. A resource-based conceptual model of plant diversity that reassesses causality in the productivity-diversity relationship. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2006, 15:213-224.
28. Magurran A.E. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement 1988, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 179.
29. McCune B., Grace J.B. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software 2002, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, 304 pp.
30. Mittelbach G.G., Steiner C.F., Scheiner S.M., Gross K.L., Reynolds H.L., Waide R.B., Willig M.R., Dodson S.I., Gough L. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity?. Ecology 2001, 82:2381-2396.
31. Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A Global Perspective 1991, 570. Cambridge University Press, UK. W.B. Meyer, B.L. Turner (Eds.).
32. Nightengale J.M., Fan W., Coops N.C., Waring R.H. Predicting tree diversity across the United States as a function of modeled gross primary production. Ecological Applications 2008, 18:93-103.
33. Nogués-Bravo D., Araújo M.B., Romdal T., Rahbek C. Scale effects and human impact on the elevational species richness gradients. Nature 2008, 453:216-220.
34. Oberle B., Grace J.B., Chase J.M. Beneath the veil: plant growth form influences the strength of species richness-productivity relationships in forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography 2009, 18:416-425.
35. Pan Y., Chen J.M., Birdsey R., McCullough K., He L., Deng F. Age structure and disturbance legacy of North American forests. Biogeosciences Discussions 2010, 7:979-1020.
36. Pärtel M., Laanisto L., Zobel M. Contrasting plant productivity-diversity relationships across latitude: the role of evolutionary history. Ecology 2007, 88:1091-1097.
37. Potter, K.M., 2009. From genes to ecosystems: measuring evolutionary diversity and community structure with Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. Proceedings of the 2008 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Symposium, Will McWilliams, Gretchen Moisen, and Ray Czaplewski, comps. Park City, Utah, Oct. 21-23, 2008. RMRS-P-56CD. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 1 CD.
38. Rosenzweig M.L. Species Diversity in Space and Time 1995, University of Cambridge Press.
39. Shipley B. Cause and Correlation in Biology: A User's Guide to Path Analysis, Structural Equations, and Causal Inference 2002, University of Cambridge Press.
40. R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.r-project.org/.
41. Sisk, T.D. (Ed.), 1998. Perspectives on the land-use history of North America: a context for understanding our changing environment. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR 1998-0003 (Revised September 1999), p. 104.
42. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service The PLANTS Database 2010, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490, USA, (7 April 2010). http://plants.usda.gov/.
43. Waide R.B., Willig M.R., Steiner C.F., Mittelbach G.G., Gough L., Dodson S.I., Juday G.P., Parmenter R. The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1999, 30:257-300.
44. Wang Z., Brown J.H., Tang Z., Fang J. Temperature dependence, spatial scale, and tree species diversity in eastern Asia and North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2009, 106:13388-13392.
45. Waring R.H., Coops N.C., Fan W., Nightingale J.M. MODIS enhanced vegetation index predicts tree species richness across forested ecoregions in the contiguous U.S.A. Remote Sensing of Environment 2006, 103:218-226.
46. Zhao M., Heinsch F.A., Nemani R.R., Running S.W. Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sensing of Environment 2005, 95:164-176.