A comparison of the strength of biodiversity effects across multiple functions

Abstract

In order to predict which ecosystem functions are most at risk from biodiversity loss, meta-analyses have generalised results from biodiversity experiments over different sites and ecosystem types. In contrast, comparing the strength of biodiversity effects across a large number of ecosystem processes measured in a single experiment permits more direct comparisons. Here, we present an analysis of 418 separate measures of 38 ecosystem processes. Overall, 45 % of processes were significantly affected by plant species richness, suggesting that, while diversity affects a large number of processes not all respond to biodiversity. We therefore compared the strength of plant diversity effects between different categories of ecosystem processes, grouping processes according to the year of measurement, their biogeochemical cycle, trophic level and compartment (above-or belowground) and according to whether they were measures of biodiversity or other ecosystem processes, biotic or abiotic and static or dynamic. Overall, and for several individual processes, we found that biodiversity effects became stronger over time. Measures of the carbon cycle were also affected more strongly by plant species richness than were the measures associated with the nitrogen cycle. Further, we found greater plant species richness effects on measures of biodiversity than on other processes. The differential effects of plant diversity on the various types of ecosystem processes indicate that future research and political effort should shift from a general debate about whether biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem functions to focussing on the specific functions of interest and ways to preserve them individually or in combination.

An ecological economic assessment of risk-reducing effects of species diversity in managed grasslands

“…In addition, not only grassland yields and their stability increase with increasing biodiversity, but also many other beneficial ecosystem functions which provide relevant ecosystem services in agriculture, such as pollination, efficient soil nitrogen use (and thus less nitrate leaching), and insurance against weed pressure (e.g. Balvanera et al, 2006, Allan et al, 2013, adding to a basic (but critical) conservation aspect when maintaining grassland species diversity (Hoekstra et al, 2005). Overall, we conclude that biodiversity might be considered an additional production factor in grassland management.…”

Towards a standardized Rapid Ecosystem Function Assessment (REFA)

“…The relatively young field of biodiversity-ecosystem functioning (BEF) research emerged around 1990, emphasizing that biodiversity itself can be a driver of ecosystem properties, and thereby allowing questions to be asked about the functional importance of biodiversity [1]. The main conclusion from BEF research over the past few decades is that low diversity in an assemblage is associated with a lowered mean (and an increase in the variance) in many of the ecosystem functions investigated [2][3][4][5]. Several meta-analyses support this conclusion (e.g., [6,7]).…”

A trait-based experimental approach to understand the mechanisms underlying biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships

“…Such biodiversity experiments assembled artificial plant communities 85 with different levels of diversity to decouple the manipulated aspects (e.g., plant species richness) from environmental factors (e.g., site fertility), and to test for a causal relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem processes (Schmid & Hector, 2004). With the increasing recognition that plant species richness has a general positive effect on many ecosystem processes (Cardinale, Duffy, Gonzalez, Hooper, Perrings, et al, 2012;Allan, Weisser, 90 Fischer, Schulze, Weigelt, et al, 2013), new questions have arisen about the mechanisms underlying these relationships.…”