Plant diversity enhances provision of ecosystem services: A new synthesis |
| |
| Authors: | Sandra Quijas Bernhard Schmid Patricia Balvanera |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Frankfurt am Main, Germany;2. Department of Crop Sciences, Division of Agroecology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;3. Faculty of Sustainability Science, Institute of Ecology, Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany;4. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;5. Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany;6. School of Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand;7. MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Lendület Landscape and Conservation Ecology Research Group, Pest, Hungary;8. Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands;9. Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland;10. Soil Biology Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands;11. Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany;12. Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;13. Department of Biometry and Environmental System Analysis, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany;14. Institute of Grassland Science, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;15. Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany;p. Department of Plant Ecology and Ecosystem Research, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;q. Department of Entomology and Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, 204 Center for Integrated Plant System, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States;r. Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic;s. Deptartment of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden;t. Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;u. Functional Agrobiodiversity, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;1. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;2. Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany;3. Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany;4. EcoNetLab, Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany;5. Institute of Biology/Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany;6. Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland;7. UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Soil Ecology Department, Halle (Saale), Germany;8. Centre d''Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175 (CNRS—Université de Montpellier—Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier—EPHE), Montpellier, France;9. Institute for Chemistry and Biology of Marine Environments [ICBM], Carl-von-Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Wilhelmshaven, Germany;10. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States;11. Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Institut für Geographie und Geoökologie, Karlsruhe, Germany;12. Institute of Computer Science, Friedrich Schiller Universität Jena, Jena, Germany;13. Radboud University, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Animal Ecology and Physiology & Experimental Plant Ecology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;14. Terrestrial Ecology Research Group, Technical University of Munich, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Freising, Germany;15. Ecotron Européen de Montpellier, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Montferrier-sur-Lez, France;p. Field Station Fabrikschleichach, Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Rauhenebrach, Germany;q. Bavarian Forest National Park, Grafenau, Germany;r. Geobotany, Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany;s. Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada;t. Department of Biosciences, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria;u. UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department Physiological Diversity, Leipzig, Germany;v. Institute of Landscape Ecology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany;w. Department of Geography, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland;x. Department of Biology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, United States;y. Forest Nature Conservation, Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;z. Department of Crop Sciences, Division of Agroecology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;11. Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use (CBL), University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany;12. Institute of Biological and Medical Imaging (IBMI), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU)—German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany;13. Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany;14. Fredericton Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Fredericton, NB, Canada;15. Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland;16. Asian School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore;17. Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland;18. Helmholtz-Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity at the University of Oldenburg (HIFMB), Oldenburg, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
