Summary1. The subdiscipline of 'community phylogenetics' is rapidly growing and influencing thinking regarding community assembly. In particular, phylogenetic dispersion of co-occurring species within a community is commonly used as a proxy to identify which community assembly processes may have structured a particular community: phylogenetic clustering as a proxy for abiotic assembly, that is habitat filtering, and phylogenetic overdispersion as a proxy for biotic assembly, notably competition. 2. We challenge this approach by highlighting (typically) implicit assumptions that are, in reality, only weakly supported, including (i) phylogenetic dispersion reflects trait dispersion; (ii) a given ecological function can be performed only by a single trait state or combination of trait states; (iii) trait similarity causes enhanced competition; (iv) competition causes species exclusion; (v) communities are at equilibrium with processes of assembly having been completed; (vi) assembly through habitat filtering decreases in importance if assembly through competition increases, such that the relative balance of the two can be thus quantified by a single parameter; and (vii) observed phylogenetic dispersion is driven predominantly by local and present-day processes. 3. Moreover, technical sophistication of the phylogenetic-patterns-as-proxy approach trades off against sophistication in alternative, potentially more pertinent approaches to directly observe or manipulate assembly processes. 4. Despite concerns about using phylogenetic dispersion as a proxy for community assembly processes, we suggest there are underappreciated benefits of quantifying the phylogenetic structure of communities, including (i) understanding how coexistence leads to the macroevolutionary diversification of habitat lineage-pools (i.e. phylogenetic-patterns-as-result approach); and (ii) understanding the macroevolutionary contingency of habitat lineage-pools and how it affects present-day species coexistence in local communities (i.e. phylogeneticpatterns-as-cause approach). 5. We conclude that phylogenetic patterns may be little useful as proxy of community assembly. However, such patterns can prove useful to identify and test novel hypotheses on (i) how local coexistence may control macroevolution of the habitat lineage-pool, for example through competition among close relatives triggering displacement and diversification of characters, and (ii) how macroevolution within the habitat lineage-pool may control local coexistence of related species, for example through origin of close relatives that can potentially enter in competition.

One Sentence Summary: Empirical evidence from grasslands around the world demonstrates a humped-back relationship between plant species richness and biomass at the 1 m 2 plot scale.Abstract: One of the central problems of ecology is the prediction of species diversity. The humped-back model (HBM) suggests that plant diversity is highest at intermediate levels of productivity; at low productivity few species can tolerate the environmental stresses and at high productivity a small number of highly competitive species dominate. A recent study claims to have comprehensively refuted the HBM. Here we show, using the largest, most geographically diverse dataset ever compiled and specifically built for testing this model that if the conditions are met, namely a wide range in biomass at the 1 m 2 plot level and the inclusion of plant litter, the relationship between plant biomass and species richness is hump shaped, supporting the HBM. Our findings shed new light on the prediction of plant diversity in grasslands, which is crucial for supporting management practices for effective conservation of biodiversity. 4Main Text: The relationship between plant diversity and productivity is a topic of intense debate (1-6). The HBM states that plant species richness peaks at intermediate productivity, taking above-ground biomass as a proxy for annual net primary productivity (ANPP) (7-9). This diversity peak is driven by two opposing processes; in unproductive and disturbed ecosystems where there is low plant biomass, species richness is limited by either stress, such as insufficient water and mineral nutrients, or high levels of disturbance-induced removal of biomass, which few species are able to tolerate. In contrast, in the low disturbance and productive conditions that generate high plant biomass it is competitive exclusion by a small number of highly competitive species that is hypothesized to constrain species richness (7-9). Other mechanisms proposed to explain the unimodal relationship between species richness and productivity include disturbance (10), evolutionary history and dispersal limitation (11,12), and density limitation affected by plant size (13).Different case studies have supported or rejected the HBM, and three separate meta-analyses reached different conclusions (14). This inconsistency may indicate a lack of generality of the HBM, or it may reflect a sensitivity to study characteristics including the type(s) of plant communities considered, the taxonomic scope, the length of the gradient sampled, the spatial grain and extent of analyses (14,15), and the particular measure of net primary productivity (16). Although others would argue (6), we maintain that the question remains whether the HBM serves as a useful and general model for grassland ecosystem theory and management. 5 We quantified the form and strength of the richness-productivity relationship using novel data from a globally-coordinated (17), distributed, scale-standardized and consistently designed survey, in which plant richness and biomass were m...

Temporal stability of ecosystem functioning increases the predictability and reliability of ecosystem services, and understanding the drivers of stability across spatial scales is important for land management and policy decisions. We used species-level abundance data from 62 plant communities across five continents to assess mechanisms of temporal stability across spatial scales. We assessed how asynchrony (i.e. different units responding dissimilarly through time) of species and local communities stabilised metacommunity ecosystem function. Asynchrony of species increased stability of local communities, and asynchrony among local communities enhanced metacommunity stability by a wide range of magnitudes (1-315%); this range was positively correlated with the size of the metacommunity. Additionally, asynchronous responses among local communities were linked with species' populations fluctuating asynchronously across space, perhaps stemming from physical and/or competitive differences among local communities. Accordingly, we suggest spatial heterogeneity should be a major focus for maintaining the stability of ecosystem services at larger spatial scales.

Climatic changes are altering Earth's hydrological cycle, resulting in altered precipitation amounts, increased interannual variability of precipitation, and more frequent extreme precipitation events. These trends will likely continue into the future, having substantial impacts on net primary productivity (NPP) and associated ecosystem services such as food production and carbon sequestration. Frequently, experimental manipulations of precipitation have linked altered precipitation regimes to changes in NPP. Yet, findings have been diverse and substantial uncertainty still surrounds generalities describing patterns of ecosystem sensitivity to altered precipitation. Additionally, we do not know whether previously observed correlations between NPP and precipitation remain accurate when precipitation changes become extreme. We synthesized results from 83 case studies of experimental precipitation manipulations in grasslands worldwide. We used meta-analytical techniques to search for generalities and asymmetries of aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) responses to both the direction and magnitude of precipitation change. Sensitivity (i.e., productivity response standardized by the amount of precipitation change) of BNPP was similar under precipitation additions and reductions, but ANPP was more sensitive to precipitation additions than reductions; this was especially evident in drier ecosystems. Additionally, overall relationships between the magnitude of productivity responses and the magnitude of precipitation change were saturating in form. The saturating form of this relationship was likely driven by ANPP responses to very extreme precipitation increases, although there were limited studies imposing extreme precipitation change, and there was considerable variation among experiments. This highlights the importance of incorporating gradients of manipulations, ranging from extreme drought to extreme precipitation increases into future climate change experiments. Additionally, policy and land management decisions related to global change scenarios should consider how ANPP and BNPP responses may differ, and that ecosystem responses to extreme events might not be predicted from relationships found under moderate environmental changes.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology.Abstract. Recent theoretical and experimental studies have addressed whether the relative importance of aboveground and belowground competition changes along gradients of biomass productivity. Results have been contradictory, with some researchers finding a decrease in the importance of belowground competition and an increase in aboveground competition with increased productivity, and others finding either no relationship, or a positive correlation between the various factors. Belowground competitive intensity (BCI), resulting from root interactions, and total competitive intensity (TCI), resulting from both root and shoot interactions, have usually been measured as the proportional growth reduction due to competition (relative to growth without competition). Instead of direct measurement, aboveground competitive intensity (ACI) has been estimated by assuming that aboveground competition and belowground competition do not interact to affect plant growth, and therefore ACI + BCI = TCI. In this study, Abutilon theophrasti was used as a focal species to determine whether an interaction between the two competitive forms could exist. Target plants were grown with varying degrees of interaction with the roots of neighboring plants, through the use of modified root exclusion tubes, and by tying back the aboveground neighboring vegetation. In total, 16 combinations of varying intensities of aboveground and belowground interactions with neighbors were created at each of two fertilization levels. The strength of belowground competition decreased with fertilization, while neither aboveground competition nor total competition (occurring both above-and belowground simultaneously) varied among fertilization treatments. Not only was there evidence for an interaction between aboveand belowground competition, the form of interaction varied with productivity, switching from no interaction in the unfertilized block to a positive interaction in the fertilized block. With fertilization, belowground competition decreased a plant's ability to compete in asymmetric competition for light. These results contrast with existing models of the role of competition in plant communities, and a new model is presented. In order to understand the role of aboveground and belowground competition in plant communities, the potential for interactions between the two competitive forms must be considered in future studies. should instead shift from occurring primarily belowground to primarily aboveground (Tilman 1988, Wilson and Tilman 1991, 1993, 1995). Resolution of this issue requires the experimental separation...