Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Overyielding in grassland communities: testing the sampling effect hypothesis with replicated biodiversity experiments

Hector, Andy, Bazeley‐White, Ellen, Loreau, Michel, Otway, Stuart, Schmid, Bernhard·2002·Ecology Letters

Abstract

We derive and test some assumptions and predictions of the Sampling Effect Hypothesis (SEH) by examining the relationship between the traits of species in monoculture and their relative abundance in mixture, and by comparing polyculture performance with single‐species plots. Although we found a positive relationship between production in monoculture and dominance in mixtures as predicted by the SEH, the relationship had low explanatory power. Counter to predictions, the species with the highest monoculture biomass were not able to strongly dominate all mixtures; instead the dominance of these species decreased with increasing species richness. On average, polycultures did not achieve greater biomass than (transgressively overyield) the species in each mixture, or at each site, that was most productive in monoculture. However, mixture yields did transgressively overyield both the monoculture biomass of the dominant species in the mixtures, and the weighted average of all monocultures (non‐transgressive overyielding), both of which were positively related to increasing species richness. The varying responses of different overyielding tests resulted because resource partitioning and positive interactions were often counter‐balanced by selection for species with lower biomass than the highest‐yielding monocultures. Judging whether or not mixtures overyield therefore depends in part upon which species is the basis for comparison. We present a new general framework for overyielding analysis where every monoculture provides a potential comparison and from which the most relevant tests can be selected.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00337.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Hector, A., Bazeley‐White, E., Loreau, M., Otway, S., & Schmid, B.
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-07
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
502-511
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2142951314
Cited by
314
References
4
FWCI
9.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Overyielding in grassland communities: testing the sampling effect hypothesis with replicated biodiversity experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00337.x
The paper
Hector, A., Bazeley‐White, E., Loreau, M., Otway, S., & Schmid, B. (2002). Overyielding in grassland communities: testing the sampling effect hypothesis with replicated biodiversity experiments. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00337.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.