24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Scaling‐up biodiversity‐ecosystem functioning research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A rich body of knowledge links biodiversity to ecosystem functioning (BEF), but it is primarily focused on small scales. We review the current theory and identify six expectations for scale dependence in the BEF relationship: (1) a nonlinear change in the slope of the BEF relationship with spatial scale; (2) a scale‐dependent relationship between ecosystem stability and spatial extent; (3) coexistence within and among sites will result in a positive BEF relationship at larger scales; (4) temporal autocorrelation in environmental variability affects species turnover and thus the change in BEF slope with scale; (5) connectivity in metacommunities generates nonlinear BEF and stability relationships by affecting population  synchrony at local and regional scales; (6) spatial scaling in food web structure and diversity will generate scale dependence in ecosystem functioning. We suggest directions for synthesis that combine approaches in metaecosystem and metacommunity ecology and integrate cross‐scale feedbacks. Tests of this theory may combine remote sensing with a generation of networked experiments that assess effects at multiple scales. We also show how anthropogenic land cover change may alter the scaling of the BEF relationship. New research on the role of scale in BEF will guide policy linking the goals of managing biodiversity and ecosystems.

          Abstract

          We address the challenge of scale for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF) research. We review current theory and identify six expectations for scale dependence in the BEF relationship. We suggest directions for synthesis that combine theoretical and empirical methods and suggest their application to human transformed landscapes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references199

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          FLUXNET: A New Tool to Study the Temporal and Spatial Variability of Ecosystem–Scale Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, and Energy Flux Densities

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services.

            Concern is growing about the consequences of biodiversity loss for ecosystem functioning, for the provision of ecosystem services, and for human well being. Experimental evidence for a relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem process rates is compelling, but the issue remains contentious. Here, we present the first rigorous quantitative assessment of this relationship through meta-analysis of experimental work spanning 50 years to June 2004. We analysed 446 measures of biodiversity effects (252 in grasslands), 319 of which involved primary producer manipulations or measurements. Our analyses show that: biodiversity effects are weaker if biodiversity manipulations are less well controlled; effects of biodiversity change on processes are weaker at the ecosystem compared with the community level and are negative at the population level; productivity-related effects decline with increasing number of trophic links between those elements manipulated and those measured; biodiversity effects on stability measures ('insurance' effects) are not stronger than biodiversity effects on performance measures. For those ecosystem services which could be assessed here, there is clear evidence that biodiversity has positive effects on most. Whilst such patterns should be further confirmed, a precautionary approach to biodiversity management would seem prudent in the meantime.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ecological consequences of genetic diversity.

              Understanding the ecological consequences of biodiversity is a fundamental challenge. Research on a key component of biodiversity, genetic diversity, has traditionally focused on its importance in evolutionary processes, but classical studies in evolutionary biology, agronomy and conservation biology indicate that genetic diversity might also have important ecological effects. Our review of the literature reveals significant effects of genetic diversity on ecological processes such as primary productivity, population recovery from disturbance, interspecific competition, community structure, and fluxes of energy and nutrients. Thus, genetic diversity can have important ecological consequences at the population, community and ecosystem levels, and in some cases the effects are comparable in magnitude to the effects of species diversity. However, it is not clear how widely these results apply in nature, as studies to date have been biased towards manipulations of plant clonal diversity, and little is known about the relative importance of genetic diversity vs. other factors that influence ecological processes of interest. Future studies should focus not only on documenting the presence of genetic diversity effects but also on identifying underlying mechanisms and predicting when such effects are likely to occur in nature.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                andrew.gonzalez@mcgill.ca
                Journal
                Ecol Lett
                Ecol. Lett
                10.1111/(ISSN)1461-0248
                ELE
                Ecology Letters
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1461-023X
                1461-0248
                29 January 2020
                April 2020
                : 23
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/ele.v23.4 )
                : 757-776
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Biology McGill University 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue Montreal H3A 1B1 Canada
                [ 2 ] Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre University of British Columbia Vancouver V6T 1Z4 Canada
                [ 3 ] Center for Forest Research Département Science et Technologie Université du Québec 5800 Saint-Denis, Téluq Montreal H2S 3L5 Canada
                [ 4 ] Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Colorado Boulder Colorado 80309 USA
                [ 5 ] Département de biologie Université de Sherbrooke 2500 Boulevard de l'Université Sherbrooke J1K 2R1 Canada
                [ 6 ] Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior University of Minnesota 1479 Gortner Avenue St. Paul MN 55108 USA
                [ 7 ] Institute of Ecology College of Urban and Environmental Science, and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education Peking University 100871 Beijing China
                [ 8 ] ISEM CNRS Univ. Montpellier IRD EPHE Montpellier France
                [ 9 ] Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modelling, Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station CNRS 2 route du CNRS, 09200 Moulis France
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: Andrew Gonzalez, Department of Biology, McGill University, Gonzalez 1205 Doctor Penfield, Montreal QC, H3A 1B1, Canada; phone 1-514-398-6444; fax 1-514-398-5069. E‐mail: andrew.gonzalez@ 123456mcgill.ca

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6075-8081
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4541-5595
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0471-1371
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5278-9045
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9689-769X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9430-8879
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9678-7770
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6676-7592
                Article
                ELE13456
                10.1111/ele.13456
                7497049
                31997566
                851cd27e-b810-49b0-854f-b8f382a6a6e3
                © 2020 The Authors. Ecology Letters published by CNRS and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 14 October 2019
                : 18 November 2019
                : 14 December 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 21, Words: 18471
                Funding
                Funded by: NSERC , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100000038;
                Funded by: National Science Foundation , open-funder-registry 10.13039/100000001;
                Award ID: 666971
                Award ID: 726176
                Award ID: 666971
                Award ID: 12
                Funded by: Killam , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100004073;
                Funded by: European Research Council , open-funder-registry 10.13039/100010663;
                Funded by: Horizon 2020 , open-funder-registry 10.13039/100010661;
                Categories
                Reviews and Syntheses
                Reviews and Syntheses
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.0 mode:remove_FC converted:11.09.2020

                Ecology
                beta diversity,biological diversity,ecosystem functioning,ecosystems,environmental heterogeneity,scale,turnover

                Comments

                Comment on this article