The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Species Richness of Experimental Productivity Gradients: How Important is Colonization Limitation?
Abstract
The biodiversity of a site should depend on the interplay of local colonization (gain) and extinction (loss) rates, but few theoretical explanations of diversity patterns on productivity gradients have included effects of productivity on colonization. In an 11—yr study, experimental increases in productivity via nitrogen addition generally led to decreased species richness in four grassland fields. Decreased diversity in productive plots was caused as much by lower rates of species gain as by greater rates of loss of existing species. Annual grasses and forbs had high gain and loss rates, but these were independent of productivity. In contrast, the rates of gain of perennial grass and forb species declined with productivity, and their rates of loss increased. Species richness was dependent on litter mass and on light penetration, but not on aboveground living plant mass, suggesting that there was no direct effect of productivity on diversity. Diversity in periodically burned prairie, which had low litter mass, was independent of productivity by the 10th and 11th yr of the study. Results suggest that diversity is lower in productive grasslands because accumulated litter, and possibly lower light penetration, inhibit germination and/or survival of seedlings, and thus decrease rates of establishment by new species. Higher productivity also leads to higher rates of loss, presumably via competitive displacement, of existing species. Results do not support the hypothesis that soil N heterogeneity controls diversity on the temporal and spatial scales of this study.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity
Huston, M. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283366 · Cited by 3,390
Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation
GRIME, J. P. (1973) · Nature · doi:10.1038/242344a0 · Cited by 2,507
Cited by
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity
Huston, M. A. (1997) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420050180 · Cited by 1,772
Loss of plant species after chronic low-level nitrogen deposition to prairie grasslands
Clark, C. M., & Tilman, D. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06503 · Cited by 1,062
Self-citationPlant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors
Naeem, S., Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D., Howe, K. M., Kennedy, T., & Gale, S. (2000) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.910108.x · Cited by 710
Self-citationPHOENIX, G. K., HICKS, W. K., CINDERBY, S., KUYLENSTIERNA, J. C. I., STOCK, W. D., DENTENER, F. J., GILLER, K. E., AUSTIN, A. T., LEFROY, R. D. B., GIMENO, B. S., et al. (2006) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01104.x · Cited by 581
Metadata
- Authors
- Tilman, D.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2179-2191
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W1989508470
- Cited by
- 511
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.66
- 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: Species Richness of Experimental Productivity Gradients: How Important is Colonization Limitation? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1939572
- The paper
- Tilman, D. (1993). Species Richness of Experimental Productivity Gradients: How Important is Colonization Limitation? Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939572
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.