The network BiodiversityKnowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments

In order to develop BiodiversityKnowledge, a Network of Knowledge working at the European science–policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services, we conducted three trial assessments. Their purpose was to test structure and processes of the knowledge synthesis function and to produce knowledge syntheses. The trial assessments covered conservation and management of kelp ecosystems, biological control of agricultural pests, and conservation and multifunctional management of floodplains. Following the BiodiversityKnowledge processes, we set up expert consultations, systematic reviews, and collaborative adaptive management procedures in collaboration with requesters, policy and decision-makers, stakeholders, and knowledge holders. Outputs included expert consultations, systematic review protocols, a group model and a policy brief. Important lessons learned were firstly that the scoping process, in which requesters and experts iteratively negotiate the scope, scale and synthesis methodology, is of paramount importance to maximize the scientific credibility and policy relevance of the output. Secondly, selection of a broad array of experts with diverse and complementary skills (including multidisciplinary background and a broad geographical coverage) and participation of all relevant stakeholders is crucial to ensure an adequate breath of expertise, better methodological choices, and maximal uptake of outcomes: Thirdly, as the most important challenge was expert and stakeholder engagement, a high visibility and reputation of BiodiversityKnowledge, supported by an incentive system for participation, will be crucial to ensure such engagement. We conclude that BiodiversityKnowledge has potential for a good performance in delivering assessments, but it requires adequate funding, trust-building among knowledge holders and stakeholders, and a proactive and robust interface with the policy and decision making community.     

Ethical challenges at the science-policy interface: an ethical risk assessment and proposition of an ethical infrastructure

Developing an interface between knowledge holders, stakeholders and decision makers on biodiversity issues, just as any science-policy interface, will face many challenges. In the crucial endeavour to tackle all those challenges, determining an ethical course of actions will be essential to the prestige and credibility of such an interface. The paper identifies and assesses potential ethical risks that may arise in interactions between science, society and policy and uses the Network of Knowledge (NoK) process as an example to show how an ethical infrastructure could be developed for minimizing the ethical risks and their potential consequences. Indeed, when various actors from different spheres (politics, academia, lobbyism, media, etc.) are called upon to interact within one process as complex as the NoK, the integrity and credibility of the latter are at high risk of being compromised if the ethical risks are not adequately addressed. In order to limit those risks, which science-policy interfaces such as IPCC and IPBES have already encountered, we propose to set up an ethical governance infrastructure that will guide (and regulate) interactions among internal actors of the NoK (knowledge coordination body, secretariat, expert working groups, etc.) as well as with external actors (requesters, stakeholders, etc.). A thorough evaluation of the interaction between the actors for every step of the process is carried out and potential ethical risks are identified. Suggestions as to how the risks can be handled and prevented are presented and integrated as part of an ethical infrastructure. The main objective of the paper is to address how a science-policy interface and the scientific community as a whole would benefit from implementing ethical measures and instruments to help prevent sensitive issues and undesired consequences undermining credibility and legitimacy.     

Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps

To respond to the need for a strengthened biodiversity science-policy-society interface at the European level, this paper presents the relevant actors and steps of a knowledge synthesis process relying on a Network of Knowledge. This process aims to maximize active involvement and contribution (including holders of traditional and local knowledge), transparency, credibility, relevance and legitimacy (among other values defined during several workshops held). The presented process allows for the implementation of several synthesis methodologies, depending on the availability of resources, quantity and quality of knowledge and decided according to the expectations of the requesters and users. We put this approach in parallel with other knowledge-based recommendations and negotiation processes such as CBD and IPBES and highlight the need to encompass the diversity of approaches, values, and challenges at the European scale, while the process simultaneously has to be highly flexible, yet simple and robust. Although the presented process still holds several challenges, it offers a step forward in the development and reflections on science-policy–society interfaces, based on consultations with a significant number of the actors from the European policy–science community.     

Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders and better informing decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services

How to effectively inform decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services has been under continuous debate in Europe and globally since the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in 1992. On the global level the Intergovernmental science–policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services was installed in 2012 to address this need. Yet, biodiversity and ecosystem services management have to be addressed on multiple levels, across biophysical as well as administrative scales. Also, the knowledge needed to address them has to be brought together from science, management practices and other knowledge domains to become relevant and it must be delivered in ways relevant for policies beyond the environmental sector. This Special Issue brings together papers that analyse the challenges arising from this context. Most of them are based on the EU-funded project KNEU that aimed at developing a new, integrative approach to activate knowledge holders and bring them together for targeted knowledge synthesis activities. The papers address the potential functions, structures and processes of such activities in a joint framework, the Network of Knowledge. Practical aspects are addressed via a number of trial assessments carried out in the project. All in all, they showcase new ways of knowledge synthesis that have the potential to complement and strengthen existing ones across scales and sectors, thus supporting an improved management of biodiversity and ecosystem services.     

Land management implications for ecosystem services in a South African rangeland

In South Africa, restoration and sustainable management of historically overgrazed and degraded rangelands are promoted to increase biodiversity and ecosystem service provision. This study evaluates different land management scenarios in terms of ecosystem services in a South African rangeland, the Baviaanskloof catchment. As measured data were limited, we used simple models to quantify and map the effect of the different combination of agricultural, nature conservation and restoration practices on multiple ecosystem services. The land management scenarios were evaluated against management targets set for individual ecosystem services. Results highlight how the provision of ecosystem services is related to land management as unmanaged, pristine ecosystems provide a different mix of ecosystem services than ecosystems recently restored or managed as grazing lands. Results also indicate that historically overgrazed lands provide no forage, may retain 40% less sediment and have 38% lower biodiversity, while providing 60% more fuel wood and supplying two and half times more water (i.e. retaining less water), than pristine or restored lands. We conclude that a combination of light grazing, low input agriculture, nature conservation and restoration is the best for the sufficient provision of multiple ecosystem services. Applying such mixed management would improve biodiversity, ecotourism and maintain forage production and regulating services on farmers’ land. This management option also fits into and further optimizes local decision-makers’ vision regarding the future management of the area.     

Ecosystem services and biodiversity in developing countries

The concept of ecosystem services has become important for our understanding of the role of nature for maintaining human livelihoods. But is biodiversity essential to maintain ecosystem services? Many studies suggest that higher biodiversity allows a higher level of ecosystem services, but others argue that there is little hard evidence, especially from tropical environments, to document the necessity of high biodiversity for provision of most ecosystem services. Thus, effective valuation of biodiversity for ecosystem services and long-term studies and monitoring are needed to fully understand the complex biodiversity-ecosystem service interface. This introduction briefly reviews some of the main arguments in this debate and provides an overview of the other five special issue papers. Exploring biodiversity and ecosystem interactions in the context of the provision of ecosystem services, these papers address population and biodiversity coexistence, the importance of dung beetles in agricultural landscapes, the knowledge and use of palms by local communities, bioprospecting for drugs and how biodiversity conservation may have added benefits in terms of improved watershed functions and health.     

Plant diversity enhances provision of ecosystem services: A new synthesis

Biodiversity is known to play a fundamental role in ecosystem functioning and thus may positively influence the provision of ecosystem services with benefits to society. There is a need for further understanding of how specific components of biodiversity are affecting service provision. In this context, terrestrial plants are a particularly important component of biodiversity and one for which a wealth of information on biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships is available. In this paper, we consider terrestrial plants as providers of ecosystem services and analyze whether manipulating plant diversity has an effect on the magnitude of ecosystem service provision using a meta-analysis of 197 effect sizes and a vote-counting analysis of 361 significance tests. The results of these analyses are compared with those of a previous meta-analysis that included a wide diversity of service providers. We produce a synthesis table to explicitly link plants as service providers to indicators of ecosystem properties and these to ecosystem services. By focusing on only plants, we found a clear positive effect of biodiversity on six out of eight services analyzed (provisioning of plant products, erosion control, invasion resistance, pest regulation, pathogen regulation and soil fertility regulation). When controlling for pseudoreplication (repeated records from single studies), we found that four of the six positive effects remained significant; only pest regulation and soil fertility showed non-significant effects. Further expanding our basis for inference with the vote-counting analysis corroborated these results, demonstrating that quantitative meta-analysis and vote-counting methods are both useful methods to synthesize biodiversity–ecosystem service studies. Notwithstanding the restricted number of identified services, our results point to the importance of maintaining plant diversity to ensure and increased provision of ecosystem services which benefit human well-being.     

Research agenda on biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services in European cities

Cities are challenging environments for human life, because of multiple environmental issues driven by urbanization. These can sometimes be mitigated through ecosystem services provided by different functions supported by biodiversity. However, biodiversity in cities is affected by numerous factors, namely habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, as well as pollution, altered climate, and new biotic challenges. To better understand the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, we need to improve our mechanistic knowledge of these relationships. Trait-based ecology is a promising approach for unravelling the causes and consequences of biodiversity filtering on ecosystem processes and underlying services, but large gaps remain unexplored.Here, we present a series of research directions that are aimed at extending the current knowledge of the relationship between trait-based biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services in cities. These directions are based on: (1) improving urban habitat mapping; (2) considering often neglected urban habitats and ecological niches; (3) integrating multiple urban gradients; (4) using trait-based approaches to improve our mechanistic understanding of the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services; and (5) extending the involvement of citizens.Pursuing these research directions may support the sustainable management of urban ecosystems and the long-term provision of ecosystem services, ultimately enhancing the well-being of urban populations.     

Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities

Ecological restoration is becoming regarded as a major strategy for increasing the provision of ecosystem services as well as reversing biodiversity losses. Here, we show that restoration projects can be effective in enhancing both, but that conflicts can arise, especially if single services are targeted in isolation. Furthermore, recovery of biodiversity and services can be slow and incomplete. Despite this uncertainty, new methods of ecosystem service valuation are suggesting that the economic benefits of restoration can outweigh costs. Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes could therefore provide incentives for restoration, but require development to ensure biodiversity and multiple services are enhanced and the needs of different stakeholders are met. Such approaches must be implemented widely if new global restoration targets are to be achieved.     

Habitat Fragmentation Intensifies Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in a Heathland Ecosystem in Southern England

While habitat fragmentation represents a major threat to global biodiversity, its impacts on provision of ecosystem services are largely unknown. We analysed biodiversity value and provision of multiple ecosystem services in 110 fragments of lowland heathland ecosystems in southern England, in which vegetation dynamics have been monitored for over 30 years. Decreasing fragment size was found to be associated with a decrease in biodiversity and recreational values, but an increase in relative carbon storage, aesthetic value and timber value. The trade-off between either biodiversity or recreational values with the other ecosystem services therefore became more pronounced as heathland size decreased. This was attributed to a higher rate of woody succession in smaller heathland fragments over the past three decades, and contrasting values of different successional vegetation types for biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services. These results suggest that habitat fragmentation can reduce the potential for developing “win win” solutions that contribute to biodiversity conservation while also supporting socio-economic development. Approaches to multi-purpose management of fragmented landscapes should therefore consider the potential trade-offs in ecosystem services and biodiversity associated with fragmentation, in order to make an effective contribution to sustainable development.     

Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation

One of the central justifications for the conservation of biodiversity is the notion that species diversity is essential for the maintenance of ecosystem services. However, an important observation overlooked by proponents of this argument is that most ecosystem services are provided not by whole ecosystems, but by any group of species that fulfils certain basic functional criteria. Distinguishing between services that are resilient in response to species decline, and those that are not, is a far less challenging task than identifying the precise influence on ecosystem functioning of rare species. Conservationists have been almost unanimous in their failure to acknowledge this distinction between resilient and sensitive ecosystem services. Not only does this threaten the credibility of conservation science, but also increases the likelihood that natural area management becomes hijacked by the demand that ecosystem service provision be made the dominant management criteria.     

Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services?

Recently, the science and policy agenda on biodiversity moved to include ecosystem services assessments and it is recognised that for determining the effectiveness and progress of policy frameworks monitoring is crucial.Within European monitoring schemes, data is collected following different sampling protocols for a range of biodiversity or context related aspects; from EU-wide general land cover mapping to red list species within Annex I habitats. In this paper, we analysed field instructions of seven monitoring schemes on the extent to which they can provide data on the provision of ecosystem services and what additional information may be needed for future monitoring of ecosystem services.We compared seven monitoring schemes (i.e. CORINE Land Cover, Land Use Cover Area Survey (LUCAS), European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE), biodiversity monitoring on organic and low-input farming systems (BioBio), National Inventory of the Landscape of Sweden (NILS) and Pan-European Common Birds Monitoring (PECBM) and UK Butterfly monitoring (UK-BM)) by scoring the quality of recorded parameters and the adequacy of sampling protocols for ecosystem service monitoring.All the examined schemes were able to provide some parameters on ecosystem services, but the quality of the parameters on average did not exceed the level of qualitative data. Additionally, the divergence between the sampling designs of the schemes and the spatial characteristics of ecosystem services reduced the potential monitoring value of all schemes. Monitoring schemes including a range of sampling methods, scales and included the recording of data on habitats, such as EBONE, BioBio and NILS, provided the best data on the provision of ecosystem services.We conclude that improvement of the monitoring of ecosystem services is hindered by several knowledge gaps: (1) a robust definition and conceptual framework of ecosystem services; (2) the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (3) the interpretation of monitoring data.In addition to ecosystem service monitoring, biodiversity monitoring unremittingly remains very important, at least to identify trade-offs between the management for services and the resulting biodiversity status.     

Forest biodiversity,ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services

Forests are critical habitats for biodiversity and they are also essential for the provision of a wide range of ecosystem services that are important to human well-being. There is increasing evidence that biodiversity contributes to forest ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Here we provide a review of forest ecosystem services including biomass production, habitat provisioning services, pollination, seed dispersal, resistance to wind storms, fire regulation and mitigation, pest regulation of native and invading insects, carbon sequestration, and cultural ecosystem services, in relation to forest type, structure and diversity. We also consider relationships between forest biodiversity and multifunctionality, and trade-offs among ecosystem services. We compare the concepts of ecosystem processes, functions and services to clarify their definitions. Our review of published studies indicates a lack of empirical studies that establish quantitative and causal relationships between forest biodiversity and many important ecosystem services. The literature is highly skewed; studies on provisioning of nutrition and energy, and on cultural services, delivered by mixed-species forests are under-represented. Planted forests offer ample opportunity for optimising their composition and diversity because replanting after harvesting is a recurring process. Planting mixed-species forests should be given more consideration as they are likely to provide a wider range of ecosystem services within the forest and for adjacent land uses. This review also serves as the introduction to this special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation on various aspects of forest biodiversity and ecosystem services.     

Social Perceptions of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Ecuadorian Amazon

The Amazon basin is widely recognized for its high biological and cultural diversity, enabling the provision of many ecosystem services. This study explores social perceptions of some of the features of biodiversity and ecosystem services in a tropical forest in Sangay Parish, Ecuador. Following a survey of residents, we identified three groups whose perceptions vary in relation to socioeconomic characteristics, cultural backgrounds, lifestyles, and the benefits obtained from the Sangay forest. Mestizo professionals, with a better socioeconomic situation, identify more regulation and cultural services; Shuar farmers have a comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity features and rely on provisioning services; and Shuar gatherers consume more forest products but are the least likely to formally recognize ecosystem services. We emphasize the importance of identifying social groups within a population and understanding their particular characteristics and perspectives before developing conservation and land use planning policies.     

Linking biodiversity indicators,ecosystem functioning,provision of services and human well-being in estuarine systems: Application of a conceptual framework

Assuming that human well-being strongly relies on the services provided by well-functioning ecosystems, changes in the ecological functioning of any system can have direct and indirect effects on human welfare. Intensive land use and tourism have expanded in recent decades along coastal ecosystems, together with increasing demands for water, food and energy; all of these factors intensify the exploitation of natural resources. Many of the interrelations between ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services (ES) still require quantification in estuarine systems. A conceptual framework to assess such links in a spatially and temporally explicit manner is proposed and applied to the Mondego estuary (Portugal). This framework relies on three consecutive steps and discriminates among biodiversity structural components, ecosystem functioning and stability and the services provided by the ecosystem.Disturbances in abiotic factors were found to have a direct effect on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ES. The observed changes in the species composition of communities had a positive effect on the ecosystem's productivity and stability. Moreover, the observed changes in the estuarine ES provision are likely to arise from changing structural and abiotic factors and in the present case from the loss or decline of locally abundant species. This study also indicates that linear relationships between biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services provision are unlikely to occur in estuarine systems. Instead, cumulative and complex relations are observed between factors on both temporal and spatial scales. In this context, the results suggest several additional conclusions: (1) biodiversity and ecosystem functioning interaction with human well-being need to be incorporated into decision-making processes aimed at the conservative management of systems; (2) the institutional use of research results must be part of the design and implementation of sustainable management activities; and (3) more integrative tools/studies are required to account for the interactions of estuarine ecosystems with surrounding socio-economic activities. Therefore, when performing integrated assessments of ecosystem dynamics, it becomes essential to consider not only the effects of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning on services provision but also the effects that human well-being and ES provision may have on estuarine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.The proposed framework implies taking into account both the functional and the commodities points of view upon natural ecosystems and by this representing a line of thought which will deserve further research to explore more in detail the conceptual links between biodiversity–ecosystem functioning–services provided.     

白洋淀流域生态系统服务评估及其调控

政策制定者在制定土地利用相关政策时需要权衡各方面的利益关系,协调资源保护和经济发展之间的关系.由于缺乏有效的评价与权衡办法,目前对这方面研究还较少.采用InVEST模型,评价了白洋淀流域7种服务功能指标,分析了其空间分布特征.通过情景(政策情景与保护情景)分析,较好的反映了农业直接经济收入与服务功能之间的关系.结果表明:生物多样性、水源涵养、土壤保持和固碳重要区域主要分布在流域西部、北部和流域中部山区;水质保护和授粉重要区域主要分布于流域东部、南部和中部平原区.政策情景下,产水量第二,农业产出有所下降,固碳能力较保护模式差,N/P输出最少.保护情景下产水量最大,农田产出价值不变,氮磷保持与政策情景差不多,但固碳效果最好.通过权衡不同情景下服务功能得失,筛选既不损害流域居民实际经济收入,又能使得水文服务功能得到提高的管理模式.研究表明InVEST模型可以很好的用于对自然资本评估和空间化特征分析,通过建立不同情景,评价结果可以用于权衡不同管理策略下服务功能得失,是一种评价和预测自然资本变化的有效方法,对政策制定和策略筛选具有重要的指导意义.     

Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science

Human domination of the Earth has resulted in dramatic changes to global and local patterns of biodiversity. Biodiversity is critical to human sustainability because it drives the ecosystem services that provide the core of our life-support system. As we, the human species, are the primary factor leading to the decline in biodiversity, we need detailed information about the biodiversity and species composition of specific locations in order to understand how different species contribute to ecosystem services and how humans can sustainably conserve and manage biodiversity. Taxonomy and ecology, two fundamental sciences that generate the knowledge about biodiversity, are associated with a number of limitations that prevent them from providing the information needed to fully understand the relevance of biodiversity in its entirety for human sustainability: (1) biodiversity conservation strategies that tend to be overly focused on research and policy on a global scale with little impact on local biodiversity; (2) the small knowledge base of extant global biodiversity; (3) a lack of much-needed site-specific data on the species composition of communities in human-dominated landscapes, which hinders ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation; (4) biodiversity studies with a lack of taxonomic precision; (5) a lack of taxonomic expertise and trained taxonomists; (6) a taxonomic bottleneck in biodiversity inventory and assessment; and (7) neglect of taxonomic resources and a lack of taxonomic service infrastructure for biodiversity science. These limitations are directly related to contemporary trends in research, conservation strategies, environmental stewardship, environmental education, sustainable development, and local site-specific conservation. Today’s biological knowledge is built on the known global biodiversity, which represents barely 20% of what is currently extant (commonly accepted estimate of 10 million species) on planet Earth. Much remains unexplored and unknown, particularly in hotspots regions of Africa, South Eastern Asia, and South and Central America, including many developing or underdeveloped countries, where localized biodiversity is scarcely studied or described. "Backyard biodiversity", defined as local biodiversity near human habitation, refers to the natural resources and capital for ecosystem services at the grassroots level, which urgently needs to be explored, documented, and conserved as it is the backbone of sustainable economic development in these countries. Beginning with early identification and documentation of local flora and fauna, taxonomy has documented global biodiversity and natural history based on the collection of "backyard biodiversity" specimens worldwide. However, this branch of science suffered a continuous decline in the latter half of the twentieth century, and has now reached a point of potential demise. At present there are very few professional taxonomists and trained local parataxonomists worldwide, while the need for, and demands on, taxonomic services by conservation and resource management communities are rapidly increasing. Systematic collections, the material basis of biodiversity information, have been neglected and abandoned, particularly at institutions of higher learning. Considering the rapid increase in the human population and urbanization, human sustainability requires new conceptual and practical approaches to refocusing and energizing the study of the biodiversity that is the core of natural resources for sustainable development and biotic capital for sustaining our life-support system. In this paper we aim to document and extrapolate the essence of biodiversity, discuss the state and nature of taxonomic demise, the trends of recent biodiversity studies, and suggest reasonable approaches to a biodiversity science to facilitate the expansion of global biodiversity knowledge and to create useful data on backyard biodiversity worldwide towards human sustainability.     

Land use efficiency: anticipating future demand for land‐sector greenhouse gas emissions abatement and managing trade‐offs with agriculture,water, and biodiversity

Competition for land is increasing, and policy needs to ensure the efficient supply of multiple ecosystem services from land systems. We modelled the spatially explicit potential future supply of ecosystem services in Australia's intensive agricultural land in response to carbon markets under four global outlooks from 2013 to 2050. We assessed the productive efficiency of greenhouse gas emissions abatement, agricultural production, water resources, and biodiversity services and compared these to production possibility frontiers (PPFs). While interacting commodity markets and carbon markets produced efficient outcomes for agricultural production and emissions abatement, more efficient outcomes were possible for water resources and biodiversity services due to weak price signals. However, when only two objectives were considered as per typical efficiency assessments, efficiency improvements involved significant unintended trade‐offs for the other objectives and incurred substantial opportunity costs. Considering multiple objectives simultaneously enabled the identification of land use arrangements that were efficient over multiple ecosystem services. Efficient land use arrangements could be selected that meet society's preferences for ecosystem service provision from land by adjusting the metric used to combine multiple services. To effectively manage competition for land via land use efficiency, market incentives are needed that effectively price multiple ecosystem services.     

Trait‐based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: Synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges

Understanding the responses of biodiversity to drivers of change and the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem properties and ecosystem services is a key challenge in the context of global environmental change. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the scientific literature linking direct drivers of change and ecosystem services via functional traits of three taxonomic groups (vegetation, invertebrates, and vertebrates) to: (1) uncover trends and research biases in this field; and (2) synthesize existing empirical evidence. Our results show the existence of important biases in published studies related to ecosystem types, taxonomic groups, direct drivers of change, ecosystem services, geographical range, and the spatial scale of analysis. We found multiple evidence of links between drivers and services mediated by functional traits, particularly between land‐use changes and regulating services in vegetation and invertebrates. Seventy‐five functional traits were recorded in our sample. However, few of these functional traits were repeatedly found to be associated with both the species responses to direct drivers of change (response traits) and the species effects on the provision of ecosystem services (effect traits). Our results highlight the existence of potential “key functional traits,” understood as those that have the capacity to influence the provision of multiple ecosystem services, while responding to specific drivers of change, across a variety of systems and organisms. Identifying “key functional traits” would help to develop robust indicator systems to monitor changes in biodiversity and their effects on ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services supply.     

Global change and plant-ecosystem functioning in freshwaters

Freshwater ecosystems are of worldwide importance for maintaining biodiversity and sustaining the provision of a myriad of ecosystem services to modern societies. Plants, one of the most important components of these ecosystems, are key to water nutrient removal, carbon storage, and food provision. Understanding how the functional connection between freshwater plants and ecosystems is affected by global change will be key to our ability to predict future changes in freshwater systems. Here, we synthesize global plant responses, adaptations, and feedbacks to present-day and future freshwater environments through trait-based approaches, from single individuals to entire communities. We outline the transdisciplinary knowledge benchmarks needed to further understand freshwater plant biodiversity and the fundamental services they provide.