Response to comment on “plant diversity increases with the strength of negative density dependence at the global scale”

Joseph A. LaManna, Scott A. Mangan, Alfonso Alonso, Norman A. Bourg, Warren Y. Brockelman, Sarayudh Bunyavejchewin, Li Wan Chang, Jyh Min Chiang, George B. Chuyong, Keith Clay, Susan Cordell, Stuart J. Davies, Tucker J. Furniss, Christian P. Giardina, I. A.U. Nimal Gunatilleke, C. V. Savitri Gunatilleke, Fangliang He, Robert W. Howe, Stephen P. Hubbell, Chang Fu HsiehFaith M. Inman-Narahari, David Janík, Daniel J. Johnson, David Kenfack, Lisa Korte, Kamil Král, Andrew J. Larson, James A. Lutz, Sean M. McMahon, William J. McShea, Hervé R. Memiaghe, Anuttara Nathalang, Vojtech Novotny, Perry S. Ong, David A. Orwig, Rebecca Ostertag, Geoffrey G. Parker, Richard P. Phillips, Lawren Sack, I. Fang Sun, J. Sebastián Tello, Duncan W. Thomas, Benjamin L. Turner, Dilys M. Vela Díaz, Tomáš Vrška, George D. Weiblen, Amy Wolf, Sandra Yap, Jonathan A. Myers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations


Chisholm and Fung claim that our method of estimating conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD) in recruitment is systematically biased, and present an alternative method that shows no latitudinal pattern in CNDD. We demonstrate that their approach produces strongly biased estimates of CNDD, explaining why they do not detect a latitudinal pattern. We also address their methodological concerns using an alternative distance-weighted approach, which supports our original findings of a latitudinal gradient in CNDD and a latitudinal shift in the relationship between CNDD and species abundance.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbereaar5245
Issue number6391
StatePublished - May 25 2018


Dive into the research topics of 'Response to comment on “plant diversity increases with the strength of negative density dependence at the global scale”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this