Why More Productive Sites Have More Species: An Experimental Test of Theory Using Tree‐Hole Communities

Abstract

One of the most common explanations for an increase in species richness with productivity is what we have dubbed the "More Individuals Hypothesis." According to this hypothesis, more productive sites can support higher total abundances and, since species richness is an increasing function of total abundance, so will it be of productivity. This hypothesis assumes that communities are limited by productivity. We tested the More Individuals Hypothesis using the detritivorous aquatic insect communities of tree holes. When tree holes with varying levels of productivity (debris amount) were allowed to be colonized (through oviposition), more productive tree holes did have more species but not more individuals. Neither was total energy use strictly proportional to productivity. Only in communities forced to disassemble through productivity reductions were the predictions of the More Individuals Hypothesis satisfied. Ovipositing adults may prefer productive tree holes not because they contain more resources but because they are anticipated to be less likely to dry out. In tree holes, and more generally, the More Individuals Hypothesis is an insufficient explanation for increases in species richness with productivity because it neither accounts for the different processes of local colonization and extinction nor allows body size to correlate with extinction risk.