Title |
Comment on “Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness”
|
---|---|
Published in |
Science, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1126/science.aad6236 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Andrew T Tredennick, Peter B Adler, James B Grace, W Stanley Harpole, Elizabeth T Borer, Eric W Seabloom, T Michael Anderson, Jonathan D Bakker, Lori A Biederman, Cynthia S Brown, Yvonne M Buckley, Chengjin Chu, Scott L Collins, Michael J Crawley, Philip A Fay, Jennifer Firn, Daniel S Gruner, Nicole Hagenah, Yann Hautier, Andy Hector, Helmut Hillebrand, Kevin Kirkman, Johannes M H Knops, Ramesh Laungani, Eric M Lind, Andrew S MacDougall, Rebecca L McCulley, Charles E Mitchell, Joslin L Moore, John W Morgan, John L Orrock, Pablo L Peri, Suzanne M Prober, Anita C Risch, Martin Schütz, Karina L Speziale, Rachel J Standish, Lauren L Sullivan, Glenda M Wardle, Ryan J Williams, Louie H Yang |
Abstract |
Fraser et al. (Reports, 17 July 2015, p. 302) report a unimodal relationship between productivity and species richness at regional and global scales, which they contrast with the results of Adler et al. (Reports, 23 September 2011, p. 1750). However, both data sets, when analyzed correctly, show clearly and consistently that productivity is a poor predictor of local species richness. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 67% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 2 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
Austria | 1 | 1% |
South Africa | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 88 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 27 | 29% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 16% |
Professor | 10 | 11% |
Other | 6 | 6% |
Student > Master | 6 | 6% |
Other | 15 | 16% |
Unknown | 14 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 43% |
Environmental Science | 20 | 22% |
Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 4% |
Unknown | 23 | 25% |