Response to Comment on "Plant diversity increases with the strength of negative density dependence at the global scale"

Joseph A LaManna; Scott A Mangan; Alfonso Alonso; Norman A Bourg; Warren Y Brockelman; Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin; Li-Wan Chang; Jyh-Min Chiang; George B Chuyong; Keith Clay; Susan Cordell; Stuart J Davies; Tucker J Furniss; Christian P Giardina; I A U Nimal Gunatilleke; C V Savitri Gunatilleke; Fangliang He; Robert W Howe; Stephen P Hubbell; Chang-Fu Hsieh; Faith M Inman-Narahari; David Janík; Daniel J Johnson; David Kenfack; Lisa Korte; Kamil Král; Andrew J Larson; James A Lutz; Sean M McMahon; William J McShea; Hervé R Memiaghe; Anuttara Nathalang; Vojtech Novotny; Perry S Ong; David A Orwig; Rebecca Ostertag; Geoffrey G Parker; Richard P Phillips; Lawren Sack; I-Fang Sun; J Sebastián Tello; Duncan W Thomas; Benjamin L Turner; Dilys M Vela Díaz; Tomáš Vrška; George D Weiblen; Amy Wolf; Sandra Yap; Jonathan A Myers

doi:10.1126/science.aar5245

Response to Comment on "Plant diversity increases with the strength of negative density dependence at the global scale"

Science. 2018 May 25;360(6391):eaar5245. doi: 10.1126/science.aar5245.

Authors

Joseph A LaManna^{1

2}, Scott A Mangan², Alfonso Alonso³, Norman A Bourg⁴, Warren Y Brockelman^{5

6}, Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin⁷, Li-Wan Chang⁸, Jyh-Min Chiang⁹, George B Chuyong¹⁰, Keith Clay¹¹, Susan Cordell¹², Stuart J Davies^{13

14}, Tucker J Furniss¹⁵, Christian P Giardina¹², I A U Nimal Gunatilleke¹⁶, C V Savitri Gunatilleke¹⁶, Fangliang He^{17

18}, Robert W Howe¹⁹, Stephen P Hubbell²⁰, Chang-Fu Hsieh²¹, Faith M Inman-Narahari¹², David Janík²², Daniel J Johnson²³, David Kenfack^{13

14}, Lisa Korte³, Kamil Král²², Andrew J Larson²⁴, James A Lutz¹⁵, Sean M McMahon^{25

26}, William J McShea²⁷, Hervé R Memiaghe²⁸, Anuttara Nathalang⁵, Vojtech Novotny^{29

30

31}, Perry S Ong³², David A Orwig³³, Rebecca Ostertag³⁴, Geoffrey G Parker²⁶, Richard P Phillips¹¹, Lawren Sack²⁰, I-Fang Sun³⁵, J Sebastián Tello³⁶, Duncan W Thomas³⁷, Benjamin L Turner³⁸, Dilys M Vela Díaz², Tomáš Vrška²², George D Weiblen³⁹, Amy Wolf^{19

40}, Sandra Yap⁴¹, Jonathan A Myers^{42

2}

Affiliations

¹ Tyson Research Center, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. [email protected].
² Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
³ Center for Conservation and Sustainability, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA.
⁴ Hydrological-Ecological Interactions Branch, Earth System Processes Division, Water Mission Area, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
⁵ Ecology Laboratory, BIOTEC, National Science and Technology Development Agency, Science Park, Pathum Thani, Thailand.
⁶ Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Mahidol University, Salaya, Nakhon, Pathom, Thailand.
⁷ Research Office, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Bangkok, Thailand.
⁸ Taiwan Forestry Research Institute, Taipei 10066, Taiwan.
⁹ Department of Life Science, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan.
¹⁰ Department of Botany and Plant Physiology, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon.
¹¹ Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
¹² Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Hilo, HI, USA.
¹³ Center for Tropical Forest Science-Forest Global Earth Observatory, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama City, Republic of Panama.
¹⁴ Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA.
¹⁵ Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
¹⁶ Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
¹⁷ Joint Lab for Biodiversity Conservation, Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU)-University of Alberta, State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, School of Life Sciences, SYSU, Guangzhou 510275, China.
¹⁸ Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
¹⁹ Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, WI, USA.
²⁰ Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
²¹ Institute of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
²² Department of Forest Ecology, Silva Tarouca Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic.
²³ Biology Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
²⁴ Department of Forest Management, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
²⁵ Center for Tropical Forest Science-Forest Global Earth Observatory, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA.
²⁶ Forest Ecology Group, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA.
²⁷ Conservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, VA, USA.
²⁸ Institut de Recherche en Ecologie Tropicale/Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique, Libreville, Gabon.
²⁹ New Guinea Binatang Research Centre, P.O. Box 604, Madang, Papua New Guinea.
³⁰ Biology Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
³¹ Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, Ceske Budejovice 370 05, Czech Republic.
³² Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
³³ Harvard Forest, Harvard University, Petersham, MA, USA.
³⁴ Department of Biology, University of Hawaii, Hilo, HI, USA.
³⁵ Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, Hualian, Taiwan.
³⁶ Center for Conservation and Sustainable Development, Missouri Botanical Gardens, St. Louis, MO, USA.
³⁷ School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA, USA.
³⁸ Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Ancon, Republic of Panama.
³⁹ Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
⁴⁰ Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, WI, USA.
⁴¹ Institute of Arts and Sciences, Far Eastern University Manila, Manila, Philippines.
⁴² Tyson Research Center, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.

PMID: 29798855
DOI: 10.1126/science.aar5245

Abstract

Chisholm and Fung claim that our method of estimating conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD) in recruitment is systematically biased, and present an alternative method that shows no latitudinal pattern in CNDD. We demonstrate that their approach produces strongly biased estimates of CNDD, explaining why they do not detect a latitudinal pattern. We also address their methodological concerns using an alternative distance-weighted approach, which supports our original findings of a latitudinal gradient in CNDD and a latitudinal shift in the relationship between CNDD and species abundance.

Publication types

Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Comment

MeSH terms

Biodiversity*
Ecosystem
Seedlings
Trees*