Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship

Abstract

The diversity of life is heterogeneously distributed across the Earth. A primary cause for this pattern is the heterogeneity in the amount of energy, or primary productivity (the rate of carbon fixed through photosynthesis), available to the biota in a given location1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. But the shape of the relationship between productivity and species diversity is highly variable10,11,12,13,14. In many cases, the relationship is ‘hump-shaped’, where diversity peaks at intermediate productivity7,9,10,12,15,16,17,18. In other cases, diversity increases linearly with productivity4,5,6,10,11,12. A possible reason for this discrepancy is that data are often collected at different spatial scales10,12,14. If the mechanisms that determine species diversity vary with spatial scale, then so would the shape of the productivity–diversity relationship. Here, we present evidence for scale-dependent productivity–diversity patterns in ponds. When the data were viewed at a local scale (among ponds), the relationship was hump-shaped, whereas when the same data were viewed at a regional scale (among watersheds), the relationship was positively linear. This dependence on scale results because dissimilarity in local species composition within regions increased with productivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Results from the survey of pond species diversity relative to in situ primary productivity at local and regional scales.
Figure 2: The relative dissimilarity in species composition among local ponds within the watersheds (calculated as one minus Jaccard's index of similarity).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lotka, A. J. Elements of Mathematical Biology (Dover, New York, 1956).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Connell, J. H. & Orias, E. The ecological regulation of species diversity. Am. Nat. 98, 399–414 (1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. MacArthur, R. H. Patterns of species diversity. Biol. Rev. 40, 510–533 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, J. H. Two decades of homage to Santa Rosalia: Towards a general theory of biodiversity. Am. Zool. 21, 877–888 (1981).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Currie, D. J. & Paquin, V. Large-scale biogeographical patterns of species richness of trees. Nature 329, 326–327 (1987).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Currie, D. J. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal and plant species richness. Am. Nat. 137, 27–49 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tilman, D. & Pacala, S. in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives (eds Ricklefs, R. E. & Schluter, D.) 12–25 (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wright, D. H., Currie, D. J. & Maurer, B. A. in Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives (eds Ricklefs, R. E. & Schluter, D.) 66–76 (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenzweig, M. L. Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Waide, R. B. et al. The relationship between primary productivity and species richness. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30, 257–300 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gaston, K. J. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405, 220–227 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mittelbach, G. G. et al. What is the observed relationship between productivity and diversity? Ecology 82, 2381–2396 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abrams, P. A. Monotonic or unimodal diversity–productivity gradients: What does competition theory predict? Ecology 76, 2019–2027 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gross, K. L. et al. Patterns of species density and productivity at different spatial scales in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89, 417–427 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leibold, M. A. Biodiversity and nutrient enrichment in pond plankton communities. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1, 73–95 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ritchie, M. E. & Olff, H. Spatial scaling laws yield a synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400, 557–560 (1999).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Abramsky, Z. & Rosenzweig, M. L. Tilman's predicted productivity–diversity relationship shown by desert rodents. Nature 309, 150–151 (1984).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dodson, S. I., Arnott, S. E. & Cottingham, K. L. The relationship in lake communities between primary productivity and species richness. Ecology 81, 2662–2679 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Whittaker, R. H. Evolution and the measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21, 213–251 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lande, R. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76, 393–401 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Loreau, M. Are communities saturated? On the relationship between α, β, and γ diversity. Ecol. Lett. 3, 73–76 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Law, R. in Advances in Ecological Theory: Principles and Applications (ed. McGlade, J.) 141–171 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vitousek, P. M. et al. Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Causes and Consequences. Issues in Ecology Vol. 1 (Ecological Society of America, Washington DC, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carpenter, S. et al. Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Issues in Ecology Vol. 3 (Ecological Society of America, Washington DC, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Clesceri, L. S., Greeberg, A. E. & Eaton, A. D. (eds) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 20th edn (American Public Health Association, Washington DC, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell-Olds, T. & Shaw, R. E. Regression analysis of natural selection: statistical inference and biological interpretation. Evolution 41, 1149–1161 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Shurin, M. Willig, M. Vandermuelen, P. Lorch and especially T. Knight for discussions and comments. A. Downing, J. Shurin and T. Leibold helped with the pond survey. This research was supported by the Kellogg Biological Station (Michigan State University), the University of Chicago, the University of California—Davis, the University of Pittsburgh and the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan M. Chase.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chase, J., Leibold, M. Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship. Nature 416, 427–430 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/416427a

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/416427a

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing