19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Toward a methodical framework for comprehensively assessing forest multifunctionality

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 2 , 9 , 1 , 2 , 10 , 2 , 11 , 4 , 12 , 1 , 2 , 11 , 12 , 6 , 13 , 9 , 1 , 2 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 1 , 7 , 17 , 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 7 , 6 , 10 , 1 , 22 , 1 , 2 , 19 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 12 , 17 , 2 , 18 , 6 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 10 , 2 , 6 , 1 , 23 , 24 , 8 , 7 , 21 , 1 , 2
      Ecology and Evolution
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.
      BEF‐China, forest biodiversity experiments, high‐throughput methods, multitrophic interactions, standardized protocols

      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

          Biodiversity–ecosystem functioning ( BEF) research has extended its scope from communities that are short‐lived or reshape their structure annually to structurally complex forest ecosystems. The establishment of tree diversity experiments poses specific methodological challenges for assessing the multiple functions provided by forest ecosystems. In particular, methodological inconsistencies and nonstandardized protocols impede the analysis of multifunctionality within, and comparability across the increasing number of tree diversity experiments. By providing an overview on key methods currently applied in one of the largest forest biodiversity experiments, we show how methods differing in scale and simplicity can be combined to retrieve consistent data allowing novel insights into forest ecosystem functioning. Furthermore, we discuss and develop recommendations for the integration and transferability of diverse methodical approaches to present and future forest biodiversity experiments. We identified four principles that should guide basic decisions concerning method selection for tree diversity experiments and forest BEF research: (1) method selection should be directed toward maximizing data density to increase the number of measured variables in each plot. (2) Methods should cover all relevant scales of the experiment to consider scale dependencies of biodiversity effects. (3) The same variable should be evaluated with the same method across space and time for adequate larger‐scale and longer‐time data analysis and to reduce errors due to changing measurement protocols. (4) Standardized, practical and rapid methods for assessing biodiversity and ecosystem functions should be promoted to increase comparability among forest BEF experiments. We demonstrate that currently available methods provide us with a sophisticated toolbox to improve a synergistic understanding of forest multifunctionality. However, these methods require further adjustment to the specific requirements of structurally complex and long‐lived forest ecosystems. By applying methods connecting relevant scales, trophic levels, and above‐ and belowground ecosystem compartments, knowledge gain from large tree diversity experiments can be optimized.

          Related collections

          Most cited references195

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

          A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification.

            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

              A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes

              Understanding and predicting ecosystem functioning (e.g., carbon and water fluxes) and the role of soils in carbon storage requires an accurate assessment of plant rooting distributions. Here, in a comprehensive literature synthesis, we analyze rooting patterns for terrestrial biomes and compare distributions for various plant functional groups. We compiled a database of 250 root studies, subdividing suitable results into 11 biomes, and fitted the depth coefficient β to the data for each biome (Gale and Grigal 1987). β is a simple numerical index of rooting distribution based on the asymptotic equation Y=1-βd, where d = depth and Y = the proportion of roots from the surface to depth d. High values of β correspond to a greater proportion of roots with depth. Tundra, boreal forest, and temperate grasslands showed the shallowest rooting profiles (β=0.913, 0.943, and 0.943, respectively), with 80-90% of roots in the top 30 cm of soil; deserts and temperate coniferous forests showed the deepest profiles (β=0.975 and 0.976, respectively) and had only 50% of their roots in the upper 30 cm. Standing root biomass varied by over an order of magnitude across biomes, from approximately 0.2 to 5 kg m-2. Tropical evergreen forests had the highest root biomass (5 kg m-2), but other forest biomes and sclerophyllous shrublands were of similar magnitude. Root biomass for croplands, deserts, tundra and grasslands was below 1.5 kg m-2. Root/shoot (R/S) ratios were highest for tundra, grasslands, and cold deserts (ranging from 4 to 7); forest ecosystems and croplands had the lowest R/S ratios (approximately 0.1 to 0.5). Comparing data across biomes for plant functional groups, grasses had 44% of their roots in the top 10 cm of soil. (β=0.952), while shrubs had only 21% in the same depth increment (β=0.978). The rooting distribution of all temperate and tropical trees was β=0.970 with 26% of roots in the top 10 cm and 60% in the top 30 cm. Overall, the globally averaged root distribution for all ecosystems was β=0.966 (r 2=0.89) with approximately 30%, 50%, and 75% of roots in the top 10 cm, 20 cm, and 40 cm, respectively. We discuss the merits and possible shortcomings of our analysis in the context of root biomass and root functioning.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                stefan.trogisch@botanik.uni-halle.de
                Journal
                Ecol Evol
                Ecol Evol
                10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7758
                ECE3
                Ecology and Evolution
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2045-7758
                06 November 2017
                December 2017
                : 7
                : 24 ( doiID: 10.1002/ece3.2017.7.issue-24 )
                : 10652-10674
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute of Biology/Geobotany and Botanical Garden Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) Germany
                [ 2 ] German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig Germany
                [ 3 ] Chair of Silviculture Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources University of Freiburg Freiburg Germany
                [ 4 ] Institute of Plant Sciences University of Bern Bern Switzerland
                [ 5 ] Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK
                [ 6 ] Department of Soil Ecology Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ Halle (Saale) Germany
                [ 7 ] Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
                [ 8 ] Institute of Zoology Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China
                [ 9 ] Department of Community Ecology Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ Halle (Saale) Germany
                [ 10 ] Institute of Biology University of Leipzig Leipzig Germany
                [ 11 ] Institute for Ecosystem Research/Geobotany Kiel University Kiel Germany
                [ 12 ] Institute of Geography, Soil Science and Geomorphology University of Tübingen Tübingen Germany
                [ 13 ] Department of Soil, Water, and Climate University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Saint Paul MN USA
                [ 14 ] Institute of Ecology Leuphana University of Lüneburg Lüneburg Germany
                [ 15 ] Department of Ecology College of Urban and Environmental Sciences Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education Peking University Beijing China
                [ 16 ] Department of Plant Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK
                [ 17 ] Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources University of Freiburg Freiburg Germany
                [ 18 ] Institute of General Ecology and Environmental Protection Technische Universität Dresden Tharandt Germany
                [ 19 ] Faculty of Biology University of Freiburg Geobotany, Freiburg Germany
                [ 20 ] Faculty of Soil and Water Conservation Beijing Forestry University Haidian District Beijing China
                [ 21 ] State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change Institute of Botany Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing China
                [ 22 ] Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BIK‐F) Frankfurt am Main Germany
                [ 23 ] Key Laboratory of Speciality Plant Resources of Jiangxi Province Jingdezhen University Jingdezhen China
                [ 24 ] Kunming Institute of Botany Chinese Academy of Sciences Kunming China
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Stefan Trogisch, Institute of Biology/Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.

                Email: stefan.trogisch@ 123456botanik.uni-halle.de

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1426-1012
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8761-0025
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4437-5106
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5081-3569
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0894-7576
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8430-3214
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-0356
                Article
                ECE33488
                10.1002/ece3.3488
                5743643
                954ce91a-5ff0-477e-b5c7-bab332800cb1
                © 2017 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 April 2017
                : 27 August 2017
                : 02 September 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 23, Words: 19895
                Funding
                Funded by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
                Award ID: DFG FOR 891/1‐3
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China
                Award ID: 30710103907
                Award ID: 30930005
                Award ID: 31170457
                Award ID: 31210103910
                Funded by: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
                Funded by: Sino‐German Centre for Research Promotion in Beijing
                Award ID: GZ 986
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                ece33488
                December 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.8 mode:remove_FC converted:26.12.2017

                Evolutionary Biology
                bef‐china,forest biodiversity experiments,high‐throughput methods,multitrophic interactions,standardized protocols

                Comments

                Comment on this article