Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in a 15-year grassland experiment: Patterns,mechanisms, and open questions |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, D-85354 Freising, Germany;2. UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Physiological Diversity, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;3. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany;4. Institute of Ecology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger Str. 159, 07743 Jena, Germany;5. Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Altenbergrain 21, 3013 Bern, Switzerland;6. Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Plant Nutriton and Fertilisation, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 4, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany;7. Agroécologie, INRA, AgroSup Dijon, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, F-21000 Dijon, France;8. Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zurich, LFW C56, Universitätsstr. 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland;9. UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Soil Ecology, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;10. Institute of Geoscience, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Burgweg 11, 07749 Jena, Germany;11. UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Conservation Biology, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;12. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland;13. Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, POB 100164, 07701 Jena, Germany;14. Plankton Ecology, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, 26382 Wilhelmshaven, Germany;15. Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands;p. Institute of Geography and Geoecology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Reinhard-Baumeister-Platz 1, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany;q. Microbial Ecology Centre, INRA, CNRS, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, UMR CNRS 5557, UMR INRA 1418, bât. G. Mendel,43 boulevard du 11 novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne, France;r. CNRS, Ecotron (UPS-3248), Campus Baillarguet, F-34980, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France;s. Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, CEFE-CNRS, UMR 5175, Université de Montpellier – Université Paul Valéry – EPHE,1919 route de Mende, F-34293, Montpellier Cedex 5, France;t. Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands;u. Geoecology, University of Tübingen, Rümelinstraße 19-23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany;v. Canada Research Chair in Ecological Integrity, Centre de recherche sur les interactions bassins versants-écosystèmes aquatiques, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 3351 Boul. des Forges, CP 500, Trois-Rivières, QC, G9A 5H7, Canada;w. Institute of Landscape Ecology, Animal Ecology and Multitrophic Interactions, University of Münster, Heisenbergstr. 2, 48149 Münster, Germany;x. Geobotany, Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Schänzlestr. 1, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany;y. J.F. Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology, Georg August University Göttingen, Berliner Strasse 28, 37073 Göttingen, Germany;z. Department of Crop Science, Agroecology, University of Göttingen, Grisebachstrasse 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany;1. Department of Grassland Science and Renewable Plant Resources, University of Kassel, Steinstrasse 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany;2. Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland;3. Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Johannisallee 21, 04103 Leipzig, Germany;4. Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany |
| |
Abstract: | In the past two decades, a large number of studies have investigated the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, most of which focussed on a limited set of ecosystem variables. The Jena Experiment was set up in 2002 to investigate the effects of plant diversity on element cycling and trophic interactions, using a multi-disciplinary approach. Here, we review the results of 15 years of research in the Jena Experiment, focussing on the effects of manipulating plant species richness and plant functional richness. With more than 85,000 measures taken from the plant diversity plots, the Jena Experiment has allowed answering fundamental questions important for functional biodiversity research.First, the question was how general the effect of plant species richness is, regarding the many different processes that take place in an ecosystem. About 45% of different types of ecosystem processes measured in the ‘main experiment’, where plant species richness ranged from 1 to 60 species, were significantly affected by plant species richness, providing strong support for the view that biodiversity is a significant driver of ecosystem functioning. Many measures were not saturating at the 60-species level, but increased linearly with the logarithm of species richness. There was, however, great variability in the strength of response among different processes. One striking pattern was that many processes, in particular belowground processes, took several years to respond to the manipulation of plant species richness, showing that biodiversity experiments have to be long-term, to distinguish trends from transitory patterns. In addition, the results from the Jena Experiment provide further evidence that diversity begets stability, for example stability against invasion of plant species, but unexpectedly some results also suggested the opposite, e.g. when plant communities experience severe perturbations or elevated resource availability. This highlights the need to revisit diversity–stability theory.Second, we explored whether individual plant species or individual plant functional groups, or biodiversity itself is more important for ecosystem functioning, in particular biomass production. We found strong effects of individual species and plant functional groups on biomass production, yet these effects mostly occurred in addition to, but not instead of, effects of plant species richness.Third, the Jena Experiment assessed the effect of diversity on multitrophic interactions. The diversity of most organisms responded positively to increases in plant species richness, and the effect was stronger for above- than for belowground organisms, and stronger for herbivores than for carnivores or detritivores. Thus, diversity begets diversity. In addition, the effect on organismic diversity was stronger than the effect on species abundances.Fourth, the Jena Experiment aimed to assess the effect of diversity on N, P and C cycling and the water balance of the plots, separating between element input into the ecosystem, element turnover, element stocks, and output from the ecosystem. While inputs were generally less affected by plant species richness, measures of element stocks, turnover and output were often positively affected by plant diversity, e.g. carbon storage strongly increased with increasing plant species richness. Variables of the N cycle responded less strongly to plant species richness than variables of the C cycle.Fifth, plant traits are often used to unravel mechanisms underlying the biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationship. In the Jena Experiment, most investigated plant traits, both above- and belowground, were plastic and trait expression depended on plant diversity in a complex way, suggesting limitation to using database traits for linking plant traits to particular functions.Sixth, plant diversity effects on ecosystem processes are often caused by plant diversity effects on species interactions. Analyses in the Jena Experiment including structural equation modelling suggest complex interactions that changed with diversity, e.g. soil carbon storage and greenhouse gas emission were affected by changes in the composition and activity of the belowground microbial community. Manipulation experiments, in which particular organisms, e.g. belowground invertebrates, were excluded from plots in split-plot experiments, supported the important role of the biotic component for element and water fluxes.Seventh, the Jena Experiment aimed to put the results into the context of agricultural practices in managed grasslands. The effect of increasing plant species richness from 1 to 16 species on plant biomass was, in absolute terms, as strong as the effect of a more intensive grassland management, using fertiliser and increasing mowing frequency. Potential bioenergy production from high-diversity plots was similar to that of conventionally used energy crops. These results suggest that diverse ‘High Nature Value Grasslands’ are multifunctional and can deliver a range of ecosystem services including production-related services.A final task was to assess the importance of potential artefacts in biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, caused by the weeding of the plant community to maintain plant species composition. While the effort (in hours) needed to weed a plot was often negatively related to plant species richness, species richness still affected the majority of ecosystem variables. Weeding also did not negatively affect monoculture performance; rather, monocultures deteriorated over time for a number of biological reasons, as shown in plant-soil feedback experiments.To summarize, the Jena Experiment has allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the functional role of biodiversity in an ecosystem. A main challenge for future biodiversity research is to increase our mechanistic understanding of why the magnitude of biodiversity effects differs among processes and contexts. It is likely that there will be no simple answer. For example, among the multitude of mechanisms suggested to underlie the positive plant species richness effect on biomass, some have received limited support in the Jena Experiment, such as vertical root niche partitioning. However, others could not be rejected in targeted analyses. Thus, from the current results in the Jena Experiment, it seems likely that the positive biodiversity effect results from several mechanisms acting simultaneously in more diverse communities, such as reduced pathogen attack, the presence of more plant growth promoting organisms, less seed limitation, and increased trait differences leading to complementarity in resource uptake. Distinguishing between different mechanisms requires careful testing of competing hypotheses. Biodiversity research has matured such that predictive approaches testing particular mechanisms are now possible. |
| |
Keywords: | Complementarity Selection effect Biomass Nutrient cycling Carbon storage Multi-trophic interactions |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|