Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Document Type
- Article (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Bottom-up effects (1)
- Browsing damage (1)
- Carbon cycling (1)
- Ecological synthesis (1)
- Ecosystem processes (1)
- Faecal pellet group count (1)
- Forest management (1)
- Grasslands (1)
- Jena experiment (1)
- Large ungulates (1)
Institute
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.
Biodiversity-multifunctionality relationships depend on identity and number of measured functions
(2017)
Biodiversity ensures ecosystem functioning and provisioning of ecosystem services, but it remains unclear how biodiversity-ecosystem multifunctionality relationships depend on the identity and number of functions considered. Here, we demonstrate that ecosystem multifunctionality, based on 82 indicator variables of ecosystem functions in a grassland biodiversity experiment, increases strongly with increasing biodiversity. Analysing subsets of functions showed that the effects of biodiversity on multifunctionality were stronger when more functions were included and that the strength of the biodiversity effects depended on the identity of the functions included. Limits to multifunctionality arose from negative correlations among functions and functions that were not correlated with biodiversity. Our findings underline that the management of ecosystems for the protection of biodiversity cannot be replaced by managing for particular ecosystem functions or services and emphasize the need for specific management to protect biodiversity. More plant species from the experimental pool of 60 species contributed to functioning when more functions were considered. An individual contribution to multifunctionality could be demonstrated for only a fraction of the species.
Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment
(2010)
Estimating large herbivore density has been a major area of research in recent decades. Previous studies monitoring ungulate density, however, focused mostly on determining animal abundance, and did not interpret animal distribution in relation to habitat parameters. We surveyed large ungulates in the Biodiversity Exploratory Schorfheide-Chorin using faecal pellet group counts. This allowed us to explore the link between relative ungulate abundance, habitat use, and browsing damage on trees in a region with several types of forest, including unharvested and age-class beech forests, as well as age-class pine forests. Our results demonstrate that roe deer and fallow deer relative abundance is negatively correlated with large tree cover, and positively correlated with the cover of small shrubs (Rubus spec., Vaccinium spec.), and winter food supply. Habitat use of roe deer and fallow deer, as estimated by counting faecal pellet groups, revealed a preference for mature pine forests, and avoidance of deciduous forests. This differential habitat use is explained by different distributions of high quality food resources during winter. The response of deer to understory cover differed between roe deer and fallow deer at high cover percentages. The amount of browsing damage we observed on coniferous trees was not consistent with the relative deer abundance. Browsing damage was consistently higher on most deciduous trees, except for beech saplings which sustained less damage when roe deer density was low. Because roe deer is a highly selective feeder, it was reported to affect tree diversity by feeding only on trees with high nutritional value. Consequently, we propose that managing the number of all deer species by hunting is necessary to allow successful forest regeneration. Such an adjustment to deer numbers would need to account for both current tree diversity and alternative food resources. Our findings may be applicable to other forest landscapes in northeastern Germany including mature pine stands and differently harvested deciduous forests.