, Volume 143, Issue 4, pp 607–618 | Cite as

Diversity and productivity of plant communities across the Inland Northwest, USA

  • Michael D. Jennings
  • John W. Williams
  • Mark R. Stromberg
Community Ecology


No definitive explanation for the form of the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem productivity exists nor is there agreement on the mechanisms linking diversity and productivity across scales. Here, we examine changes in the form of the diversity–productivity relationship within and across the plant communities at three observational scales: plots, alliances, and physiognomic vegetation types (PVTs). Vascular plant richness data are from 4,760 20 m2 vegetation field plots. Productivity estimates in grams carbon per square meter are from annual net primary productivity (ANPP) models. Analyses with generalized linear models confirm scale dependence in the species diversity–productivity relationship. At the plot focus, the observed diversity–productivity relationship was weak. When plot data were aggregated to a focus of vegetation alliances, a hump-shaped relationship was observed. Species turnover among plots cannot explain the observed hump-shaped relationship at the alliance focus because we used mean plot richness across plots as our index of species richness for alliances and PVTs. The sorting of alliances along the productivity gradient appears to follow regional patterns of moisture availability, with alliances that occupy dry environments occurring within the increasing phase of the hump-shaped pattern, alliances that occupy mesic to hydric environments occurring near the top or in the decreasing phase of the curve, and alliances that occupy the wettest environments having the fewest species and the highest ANPP. This pattern is consistent with the intermediate productivity theory but appears to be inconsistent with the predictions of water–energy theory.


Biodiversity Primary productivity Community ecology GLM 


  1. Abrams PA (1995) Monotonic or unimodal diversity–productivity gradient: what does competition theory predict? Ecology 76:2019–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey RG, Avers PE, King T, McNab WH (1994) Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map). USDA Forest Service; 1:7,500,000 with supplementary table of map unit descriptions. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour MG, Glenn-Lewin D, Loucks O (2000) Progress towards North American vegetation classification at physiognomic and floristic levels. In: White PS, Micina L, Lepš J (eds) Vegetation science in retrospect and perspective, Proceedings of the 41st IAVS symposium. Opulus, Grangärde, pp 111–114Google Scholar
  4. Bond M, Chase JM (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at local and regional spatial scales. Ecol Lett 5:467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapin FS, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Diaz S (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2002) Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship. Nature 416:427–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cliff AD, Ord JK, (1981) Spatial processes models and applications. Pion Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Connell JH, Orias L (1964) The ecological regulation of species diversity. Am Nat 98:399–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramer W, Kicklighter DW, Bondeau A, Moore A III, Churkina G, Nemry B, Ruimy A, Schloss AL (1999) Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): overview and key results. Global Change Biol 5:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley MJ (1993) GLIM for ecologists. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtis JT (1959) The vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  12. Daubenmire RF (1956) Climate as a determinant of vegetation in eastern Washington. Ecol Monogr 26:131–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grace JB (1999) The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 2:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grace JB (2001) The roles of community biomass and species pools in the regulation of plant diversity. Oikos 92:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grime JP (1973a) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grime JP (1973b) Control of species density in herbaceous vegetation. J Environ Manage 1:151–167Google Scholar
  17. Gross KL, Willig MR, Gough L, Inouye R, Cox SB (2000) Patterns of species density and productivity at different spatial scales in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89:417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grossman DH, Faber-Langendoen D, Weakley AS, Anderson M, Bourgeron P, Crawford R, Goodin K, Landaal S, Metzler K, Patterson K, Pyne M, Reid M, Sneddon L (1998) International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States, vol I, The National Vegetation Classification System: development, status, and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Guo Q, Berry WL (1998) Species richness and biomass: dissection of the hump-shaped relationships. Ecology 79:2555–2559Google Scholar
  20. Haining R (1990) Spatial data analysis in the social and environmental sciences. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins BA, Porter EE (2003) Does herbivore density depend on plant diversity? The case of California butterflies. Am Nat 161:40–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawkins BA, Field R, Cornell HV, Currie DJ, Guégan J-F, Kaufman DM, Kerr JT, Mittelbach GG, Oberdorff T, O’Brien EM, Porter EE, Turner JRG (2003) Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84:3105–3117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hector A, Schmid B (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huston MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Intermountain Fire Science Lab (1996) Net primary productivity. Missoula, Montana, USA (web resource URL: http://www.icbemp.gov/spatial/crbsum/)
  26. Jennings M, Faber-Langendoen D, Peet R, Loucks O, Glenn-Lewin D, Damman A, Barbour M, Pfister R, Grossman D, Roberts D, Tart D, Walker M, Talbot S, Walker J, Hartshorn G, Waggoner G, Abrams M, Hill A, Rejmanek M (2004) Guidelines for establishing and revising associations and alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification: Version 4.0. Vegetation Classification Panel of the Ecological Society of America, Washington, (web resource URL: http://esa.org/vegweb/docFiles/NVC_Guidelines-v40.pdf)
  27. Kaluzny SP, Vega SC, Cardoso TP, Shelly AA (1998) S+ spatial stats. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruskal JB (1964) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leibold MA (1999) Biodiversity and nutrient enrichment in pond plankton communities. Evol Ecol Res 1:73–95Google Scholar
  30. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1999) Multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 4.17. MjM Software, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell-Olds T, Shaw RG (1987) Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical influence and biological interpretation. Evolution 41:1149–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mittelbach GG, Steiner CF, Scheiner S, Gross K, Reynolds HL, Waide R, Willig M, Dodson SI, and Gough L (2001) What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82(9):2381–2396Google Scholar
  34. Naeem S (2002) Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigm. Ecology 83:1537–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NatureServe (2002) NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life, Version 1.6. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA (web resource URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer)
  36. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models, 4th edn. R.D. Irwin, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  37. Nicholls AO (1989) How to make biological surveys go further with generalized linear models. Biol Conserv 50:51–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Brien EM (1993) Climatic gradients in woody plant species richness: towards an explanation based on an analysis of southern Africa’s woody flora. J Biog 20:181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Brien EM (1998) Water-energy dynamics, climate, and prediction of woody plant species richness: an interim general model. J Biog 25:379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oksanen J (1996) Is the humped relationship between species richness and biomass an artifact due to plot size? J Ecol 84:293–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Preston FW (1962) Canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: part 1. Ecology 43:185–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Running SW (1994) Testing forest-BCG ecosystem process simulations across a climate gradient in Oregon. Ecol Appl 4:238–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Running SW, Hunt ER Jr (1993) Generalization of a forest ecosystem process model for other biomes, Biome-BGC, and an application for global-scale models. In: Ehleringer JR, Field C (eds) Scaling processes between leaf and landscape levels. Academic, London, pp 141–158Google Scholar
  45. Scheiner SM, Jones S (2002) Diversity, productivity and scale in Wisconsin vegetation. Evol Ecol Res 4:1097–1117Google Scholar
  46. Scheiner SM, Cox SB, Willig M, Mittelbach GG, Osenberg C, and Kaspari M (2000) Species richness-area curves and Simpson’s paradox. Evol Ecol Res 2:791–802Google Scholar
  47. Schulze ED, Mooney HA (1993) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Sokal RR (1979) Testing statistical significance of geographic variation patterns. Syst Zool 28:627–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tilman D (2000) Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature 405:208–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tilman D, Lehman CL, Thomson KT (1997) Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1857–1861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. USDA NRCS (2000) The PLANTS database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA (web resource URL: http://plants.usda.gov)
  52. VEMAP Members (1995) Vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis project (VEMAP): Comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Global Biogeochem Cycles 9:407–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Venables WN, Ripley BB (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Vincent PJ, Haworth JM (1983) Poisson regression models of species abundance. J Biogeogr 10:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waide.B, Willing MR, Steiner CF, Mittelbach G, Gough L, Dodson SI, Juday GP, Parmenter R (1999) The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:257–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White MA, Thornton PE, Running SW, Nemani RR (2000) Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME–BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interact 4(3):1–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whittaker RH, Niering WA (1975) Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona. V. Biomass, production, and diversity along the elevation gradient. Ecology 56:771–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wright DH, Currie DJ, Maurer BA (1993) Energy supply and patterns of species richness on local and regional scales. In: Ricklefs RE Schulter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Jennings
    • 1
    • 4
  • John W. Williams
    • 2
    • 5
  • Mark R. Stromberg
    • 3
  1. 1.National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis/Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Ecological Analysis and SynthesisUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Hastings Natural History Reservation, Museum of Vertebrate ZoologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.The Nature Conservancy, Global Priorities GroupUniversity of Idaho, Department of GeographyMoscowUSA
  5. 5.Department of GeographyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations