We have over 12,000 students, from over 100 countries, within one of the safest campuses in the UK


93% of Lancaster students go into work or further study within six months of graduating

Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Response to Comments on “Productivity Is a Poor...
View graph of relations

« Back

Response to Comments on “Productivity Is a Poor Predictor of Plant Species Richness”

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article


  • J.B. Grace
  • P.B. Adler
  • E. Seabloom
  • E.T. Borer
  • H. Hillebrand
  • Y. Hautier
  • A. Hector
  • W.S. Harpole
  • L.R. O’Halloran
  • T.M. Anderson
  • J.D. Bakker
  • C.S. Brown
  • Y. Buckley
  • S.L. Collins
  • K.L. Cottingham
  • M.J. Crawley
  • E.I. Damschen
  • K.F. Davies
  • N.M. DeCrappeo
  • P.A. Fay
  • J. Firn
  • D. Gruner
  • N. Hagenah
  • V.L. Jin
  • K.P. Kirkham
  • J. Knops
  • K.J. La Pierre
  • J. Lambrinos
  • W. Li
  • B.A. Melbourne
  • C.E. Mitchell
  • J. Moore
  • J. Morgan
  • J. Orrock
  • S. Prober
  • P. Wragg
  • L.H. Yang
Journal publication date2012
Number of pages1
Original languageEnglish


Pan et al. claim that our results actually support a strong linear positive relationship between productivity and richness, whereas Fridley et al. contend that the data support a strong humped relationship. These responses illustrate how preoccupation with bivariate patterns distracts from a deeper understanding of the multivariate mechanisms that control these important ecosystem properties.