Response to Comment on "Plant diversity increases with the strength of negative density dependence at the global scale".
Joseph A LaMannaScott A ManganAlfonso AlonsoNorman A BourgWarren Y BrockelmanSarayudh BunyavejchewinLi-Wan ChangJyh-Min ChiangGeorge B ChuyongKeith ClaySusan CordellStuart J DaviesTucker J FurnissChristian P GiardinaI A U Nimal GunatillekeC V Savitri GunatillekeFangliang HeRobert W HoweStephen P HubbellChang-Fu HsiehFaith M Inman-NarahariDavid JaníkDaniel J JohnsonDavid KenfackLisa KorteKamil KrálAndrew J LarsonJames A LutzSean M McMahonWilliam J McSheaHervé R MemiagheAnuttara NathalangVojtěch NovotnýPerry S OngDavid A OrwigRebecca OstertagGeoffrey G ParkerRichard P PhillipsLawren SackI-Fang SunJ Sebastián TelloDuncan W ThomasBenjamin L TurnerDilys M VelaTomáš VrškaGeorge D WeiblenAmy WolfSandra YapJonathan A MyersPublished in: Science (New York, N.Y.) (2018)
Hülsmann and Hartig suggest that ecological mechanisms other than specialized natural enemies or intraspecific competition contribute to our estimates of conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD). To address their concern, we show that our results are not the result of a methodological artifact and present a null-model analysis that demonstrates that our original findings-(i) stronger CNDD at tropical relative to temperate latitudes and (ii) a latitudinal shift in the relationship between CNDD and species abundance-persist even after controlling for other processes that might influence spatial relationships between adults and recruits.