Further re‐analyses looking for effects of phylogenetic diversity on community biomass and stability

Abstract

Species richness (SR) and phylogenetic diversity (PD) are highly correlated measures of plant diversity. Each, by itself, is significantly associated with plant community biomass in biodiversity experiments. As presented by Cadotte (2015) and as we present below, reasonable but alternative analyses that attempt to control for this correlation in different ways provide contradictory or inconclusive support for the hypothesis that PD is superior to SR as a predictor of community biomass. In Venail et al. (2015), we re-analysed data from 16 experimental manipulations of grassland SR to look at how SR and PD influence variation in plant community biomass through time. Using four types of analyses, we showed that, after statistically controlling for variation in SR, PD was not related to community biomass or to the temporal stability of biomass. We did, however, find that SR tends to increase the biomass production of plant communities after controlling for PD. In his comment, Cadotte expressed two concerns about our analyses. One is that we used non-random subsets of experiments, rather than the full data set, for some of our analyses (types 2, 3). We were clear in stating these analyses were based on non-random subsets that were specifically chosen to minimize the SR–PD correlation and avoid problems associated with multicollinearity. We acknowledge that our tests are conservative, a cost of which is that they sacrifice statistical power while, at the same time, minimizing the chance of drawing an incorrect conclusion. But we disagree with Cadotte’s suggestion that our use of non-random data subsets led to ‘biased’ conclusions, and demonstrate later in this response that his claim of bias is unsubstantiated. Cadotte’s second concern was that our analyses did not account for differences in biomass across studies. This is an important criticism to consider; we made a mistake by not controlling for variation in biomass. To address this issue, Cadotte used mixed models where study was included as a random effect, and ran analyses that standardized biomass among sites. Collectively, these led Cadotte to conclude ‘All analyses strongly support previous literature claims about the value of PD and I further show that: (i) PD provides a more powerful explanation of variation in biomass production than species richness; (ii) PD explains variation in biomass production after controlling for richness; and (iii) the use of data subsets inadvertently biased the conclusions’. We have two concerns with Cadotte’s re-analysis. First, Cadotte’s approach largely ignores the concerns we raised about multicollinearity. When two or more predictors