No abstract

No abstract

While various relationships between productivity and biodiversity are found in forests, the processes underlying these relationships remain unclear and theory struggles to coherently explain them. In this work, we analyse diversity–productivity relationships through an examination of forest structure (described by basal area and tree height heterogeneity). We use a new modelling approach, called ‘forest factory’, which generates various forest stands and calculates their annual productivity (above-ground wood increment). Analysing approximately 300 000 forest stands, we find that mean forest productivity does not increase with species diversity. Instead forest structure emerges as the key variable. Similar patterns can be observed by analysing 5054 forest plots of the German National Forest Inventory. Furthermore, we group the forest stands into nine forest structure classes, in which we find increasing, decreasing, invariant and even bell-shaped relationships between productivity and diversity. In addition, we introduce a new index, called optimal species distribution, which describes the ratio of realized to the maximal possible productivity (by shuffling species identities). The optimal species distribution and forest structure indices explain the obtained productivity values quite well (R2 between 0.7 and 0.95), whereby the influence of these attributes varies within the nine forest structure classes.

Ecosystems respond in various ways to disturbances. Quantifying ecological stability therefore requires inspecting multiple stability properties, such as resistance, recovery, persistence and invariability. Correlations among these properties can reduce the dimensionality of stability, simplifying the study of environmental effects on ecosystems. A key question is how the kind of disturbance affects these correlations. We here investigated the effect of three disturbance types (random, species‐specific, local) applied at four intensity levels, on the dimensionality of stability at the population and community level. We used previously parameterized models that represent five natural communities, varying in species richness and the number of trophic levels. We found that disturbance type but not intensity affected the dimensionality of stability and only at the population level. The dimensionality of stability also varied greatly among species and communities. Therefore, studying stability cannot be simplified to using a single metric and multi‐dimensional assessments are still to be recommended.

Models are pivotal for assessing future forest dynamics under the impacts of changing climate and management practices, incorporating representations of tree growth, mortality, and regeneration. Quantitative studies on the importance of mortality submodels are scarce. We evaluated 15 dynamic vegetation models (DVMs) regarding their sensitivity to different formulations of tree mortality under different degrees of climate change. The set of models comprised eight DVMs at the stand scale, three at the landscape scale, and four typically applied at the continental to global scale. Some incorporate empirically derived mortality models, and others are based on experimental data, whereas still others are based on theoretical reasoning. Each DVM was run with at least two alternative mortality submodels. Model behavior was evaluated against empirical time series data, and then, the models were subjected to different scenarios of climate change. Most DVMs matched empirical data quite well, irrespective of the mortality submodel that was used. However, mortality submodels that performed in a very similar manner against past data often led to sharply different trajectories of forest dynamics under future climate change. Most DVMs featured high sensitivity to the mortality submodel, with deviations of basal area and stem numbers on the order of 10–40% per century under current climate and 20–170% under climate change. The sensitivity of a given DVM to scenarios of climate change, however, was typically lower by a factor of two to three. We conclude that (1) mortality is one of the most uncertain processes when it comes to assessing forest response to climate change, and (2) more data and a better process understanding of tree mortality are needed to improve the robustness of simulated future forest dynamics. Our study highlights that comparing several alternative mortality formulations in DVMs provides valuable insights into the effects of process uncertainties on simulated future forest dynamics.