@article {KNZ001546,
	title = {Correlations between genetic and species diversity: effects of resource quantity and heterogeneity},
	journal = {Journal of Vegetation Science},
	volume = {24},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {1185 -1194},
	abstract = {<p>Questions It is hypothesized that species and genetic diversity are correlated because niche differentiation among species and genotypes is either affected by the same processes (positive) or each level restricts the amount of diversity in the other (negative). Although many studies have observed both positive and negative relationships, others have found no correlation between the two diversity measures. Are measures of species (richness, diversity and evenness) and genetic diversity correlated, and how does resource (soil moisture, light, nitrogen and phosphorus) quantities and heterogeneity affect both levels of diversity? Location Intact tallgrass prairie at Konza Prairie Biological Station, northeast Kansas, US. Methods We investigate the correlation between plant species and genetic diversity in a long-term precipitation manipulation experiment \&ndash; the Rainfall Manipulation Plots (RaMPs) \&ndash; located in intact tallgrass prairie as well as adjacent non-manipulated prairie. The RaMPs experiment has been imposing ambient and more variable precipitation regimes (a 50\% increase in timing between rainfall events without changing total rainfall amount) during the growing season since 1998, resulting in reduced mean soil moisture and increased soil moisture variability. Thus, the RaMPs and non-manipulated prairie plots capture a range of soil moisture amounts and variability. Genetic diversity (measured as genotype richness and genomic dissimilarity among individuals) was quantified for the dominant grass species, Andropogon gerardii, which has large impacts on plant community structure and ecosystem function. Results We found species and genetic diversity were not significantly correlated. Genotypic richness was negatively related to soil moisture variability, but measures of species diversity were not. In the non-manipulated plots only, we found generally negative relationships between resource quantity (light and nitrogen) and community diversity, and positive relationships between resource heterogeneity (CV of light) and community diversity. Conclusions Our results suggest that a lack of a positive or negative relationship between species and genetic diversity could be due to these two levels of diversity responding differently to the identity, quantity and heterogeneity of resources.</p>},
	keywords = {LTER-KNZ, Andropogon gerardii, C4 grass, dominant species, grassland, Resource heterogeneity, Resource quantity, Species genetic diversity correlation},
	doi = {10.1111/jvs.12042},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jvs.12042},
	author = {M.L. Avolio and M.D. Smith}
}
@article {KNZ001039,
	title = {Species richness- productivity relationship for small mammals along a desert-grassland continuum:  differential responses of functional groups},
	journal = {Journal of Mammalogy},
	volume = {87},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {777 -783},
	abstract = {We used published data to calculate small-mammal species richness at 43 sites in North America to examine the response of species richness to increasing primary productivity. We estimated species richness for the entire community and for each of 4 functional groups (insectivore, granivore, herbivore, and omnivore). Total richness exhibited a significant unimodal relationship to increasing amounts of annual precipitation and was driven by granivores; this functional group exhibited the most pronounced decline in richness with high precipitation. We suggest that the decline in granivore richness is due to increased litter associated with increased productivity.},
	keywords = {LTER-KNZ, desert, functional group, Grasslands, Primary productivity, Resource heterogeneity, small mammals, Species richness},
	doi = {10.1644/05-MAMM-A-253R2.1},
	author = {Reed, A.W. and Kaufman, G.A. and D.W. Kaufman}
}
@article {KNZ00683,
	title = {Does a tradeoff exist between morphological and physiological root plasticity? A comparison of grass growth forms},
	journal = {Acta Oecologica},
	volume = {20},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {519 -526},
	abstract = {A series of experiments were conducted to evaluate the potential tradeoff between morphological and physiological root plasticity in caespitose and rhizomatous grass growth forms in semi-arid and mesic communities. Morphological and physiological root plasticity were evaluated with in-growth cores and excised root assays, respectively. The rhizomatous grass in the semi-arid community was the only species to display significant physiological root plasticity, but all species possessed the capacity to proportionally increase 15N uptake with increasing concentrations of (15NH4)2SO4 solution. Neither the caespitose nor the rhizomatous grass displayed morphological root plasticity in response to nitrogen addition in the mesic community. In contrast, significant morphological root plasticity occurred in species of both growth forms in the semi-arid community. These data suggest that the compact architecture and the ability to accumulate nutrients in soils directly beneath caespitose grasses did not increase selection pressure for physiological root plasticity at the expense of morphological root plasticity and that the coarse grained foraging strategy and low density of large diameter roots did not increase morphological root plasticity at the expense of physiological root plasticity in rhizomatous grasses. These preliminary data suggest that 1) a high maximum uptake rate for nitrogen in these perennial grasses may minimize the expression of physiological root plasticity, 2) morphological and physiological root plasticity may represent complimentary, rather than alternative, foraging strategies, and 3) the expression of root plasticity may be strongly influenced by abiotic variables within specific habitats.},
	keywords = {LTER-KNZ, clonal plants, plant foraging, plant-soil relations, Resource heterogeneity},
	doi = {10.1016/S1146-609X(00)86619-9},
	author = {Derner, J.D. and Briske, D.D.}
}
