Affiliations 

  • 1 Ecosystem Analysis and Simulation (EASI) Lab, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany. [email protected]
  • 2 Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
  • 3 School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
  • 4 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • 5 Department of Ecology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
  • 6 Forest Global Earth Observatory, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama City, Panama
  • 7 Conservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian's National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VA, USA
  • 8 National Biobank of Thailand (NBT), National Science and Technology Development Agency, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 9 Thai Long Term Forest Ecological Research Project, Department of Forest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 10 Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas Sinchi, Bogotá, Colombia
  • 11 Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
  • 12 Department of Plant Science, University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon
  • 13 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
  • 14 Forest Global Earth Observatory, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
  • 15 Departamento de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín, Medellín, Colombia
  • 16 Department of Science and Technology, Uva Wellassa University, Badulla, Sri Lanka
  • 17 University of Kisangani, Kisangani, Congo
  • 18 Environmental Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
  • 19 Department of Forest Ecology, Silva Tarouca Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
  • 20 Cofrin Center for Biodiversity, Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, WI, USA
  • 21 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • 22 Graduate School of Science, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan
  • 23 School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
  • 24 Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO), Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
  • 25 Department of Forest Management, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA
  • 26 Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
  • 27 Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • 28 Sarawak Forest Department, Kuching, Malaysia
  • 29 Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, Malaysia
  • 30 Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, Colombia
  • 31 Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
  • 32 Department of Forest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 33 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Donghwa University, Hualien, Taiwan
  • 34 School of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
  • 35 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
  • 36 UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, UK
  • 37 Department of Ecology, Evolution & Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
  • 38 Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, WI, USA
  • 39 Department of Environmental Science, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, USA
  • 40 Theoretical Ecology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
Nature, 2024 Mar;627(8004):564-571.
PMID: 38418889 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07118-4

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown reduced performance in plants that are surrounded by neighbours of the same species1,2, a phenomenon known as conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD)3. A long-held ecological hypothesis posits that CNDD is more pronounced in tropical than in temperate forests4,5, which increases community stabilization, species coexistence and the diversity of local tree species6,7. Previous analyses supporting such a latitudinal gradient in CNDD8,9 have suffered from methodological limitations related to the use of static data10-12. Here we present a comprehensive assessment of latitudinal CNDD patterns using dynamic mortality data to estimate species-site-specific CNDD across 23 sites. Averaged across species, we found that stabilizing CNDD was present at all except one site, but that average stabilizing CNDD was not stronger toward the tropics. However, in tropical tree communities, rare and intermediate abundant species experienced stronger stabilizing CNDD than did common species. This pattern was absent in temperate forests, which suggests that CNDD influences species abundances more strongly in tropical forests than it does in temperate ones13. We also found that interspecific variation in CNDD, which might attenuate its stabilizing effect on species diversity14,15, was high but not significantly different across latitudes. Although the consequences of these patterns for latitudinal diversity gradients are difficult to evaluate, we speculate that a more effective regulation of population abundances could translate into greater stabilization of tropical tree communities and thus contribute to the high local diversity of tropical forests.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.