ReviewOecologia2023
A critical assessment of the biodiversity-productivity relationship in forests and implications for conservation.
Review in Oecologia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influences of Structural and Species Diversity on Forest Resistance to Drought.Ecology letters · 2026Article
- Carbon dynamics with stand structure and species diversity in the Hindu Kush Himalaya ranges of Pakistan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The question of whether biodiversity conservation and carbon conservation can be synergistic hinges on the form of the biodiversity-productivity relationship (BPR), a fundamental ecological pattern. The stakes are particularly high when it comes to forests, which at a global level comprises a large fraction of both biodiversity and carbon. And yet, in forests, the BPR is relatively poorly understood. In this review, we critically evaluate research on forest BPRs, focussing on the experimental and observational studies of the last 2 decades. We find general support for a positive forest BPR, suggesting that biodiversity and carbon conservation are synergistic to a degree. However, we identify several major caveats: (i) although, on average, productivity may increase with biodiversity, the highest-yielding forests are often monocultures of very productive species; (ii) productivity typically saturates at fewer than ten species; (iii) positive BPRs can be driven by some third variable, in particular stem density, instead of a causal arrow from biodiversity to productivity; (iv) the BPR's sign and magnitude varies across spatial grains and extents, and it may be weak at scales relevant to conservation; and (v) most productivity estimates in forests are associated with large errors. We conclude by explaining the importance of these caveats for both conservation programmes focussed on protection of existing forests and conservation programmes focussed on restoring or replanting forests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.