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)
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.
Keyphrases