Community Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 177–180 | Cite as

The species richness-productivity relationship: time to stop searching for a “true” pattern?

  • Y. ZivEmail author
  • A. Tsairi


Contrary to the past belief that the species richness-productivity relationship (SRPR) is characterized by a single “true” pattern, several analyses have shown that a heterogeneous distribution of SRPRs exists and that the patterns’ distribution of a SRPR is sensitive to the directness of the estimates of productivity. A simple conceptual model demonstrates that taking into account underlying relationships connecting productivity with species richness produces a heterogeneous distribution of relationships. We suggest that the search for a single pattern for SRPR has reached a dead end, and that we should direct our research focus to exploring the mechanisms responsible for the various SRPRs.


Conceptual model Monotonic-increase relationship Species diversity Unimodal pattern 



species richness-productivity relationship.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrams, P.A 1995. Monotonic or unimodal diversity-productivity gradients: what does competition theory predict. Ecology 76:2019–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramsky, Z. 1989. Communities of gerbilline rodents in sand dunes of Israel. In: D.W. Morris, Z. Abramsky, B.J. Fox and M.R. Willig (eds.), Patterns in the Structure of Mammalian Communities. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, pp. 205–217.Google Scholar
  3. Chase, J.M. and M.A. Leibold 2002. Spatial scale dictates the productivity-biodiversity relationship. Nature 416:427–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grace, J.B 1999. The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspectives in Pant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Groner, E. and A. Novoplansky 2003. Reconsidering diversity-productivity relationships: directness of productivity estimates matters. Ecol. Lett. 6:695–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gross, K.L., M.R. Willig, L. Gough, R. Inouye and S.B. Cox 2000. Patterns of species density and productivity at different spatial scales in herbaceous communities. Oikos 89:417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huston, M.A. and D.L. DeAngelis 1994. Competition and coexistence – the effects of resource transport and supply. Am. Nat. 144:954–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  9. Mittelbach, G.G., C.F. Steiner, S.M. Scheiner, K.L. Gross, H.L. Reynolds, R.B. Waide, M.R. Willig, S.I. Dodson and L. Gough 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:2381–2396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Preston, F.W 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: part I. Ecology 43:182–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rajaniemi, T.K 2003. Explaining productivity-diversity relationships in plants. Oikos 101:449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosenzweig, M.L. and Z. Abramsky. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? In: R.E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter (eds.), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 52–65.Google Scholar
  13. Tilman, D. and S. Pacala. 1993. The maintenance of species richness in plant communities. In: R.E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter (eds.), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
  14. Waide, R.B., M.R. Willig, C.F. Steiner, G. Mittelbach, L. Gough, S.I. Dodson, G.P. Juday and R. Parmenter 1999. The relationship between productivity and species richness. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:257–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Whittaker, R.H. 1970. Communities and Ecosystems. The Macmillan Company, Toronto.Google Scholar
  16. Wright, D.H., D.J. Currie and B.A. Maurer. 1993. Energy supply and patterns of species richness on local and regional scales. In: R.E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter (eds.), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 66–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2004

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesBen-Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations