High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services

Abstract

Biodiversity is rapidly declining worldwide1, and there is consensus that this can decrease ecosystem functioning and services2,3,4,5,6,7. It remains unclear, though, whether few8 or many9 of the species in an ecosystem are needed to sustain the provisioning of ecosystem services. It has been hypothesized that most species would promote ecosystem services if many times, places, functions and environmental changes were considered9; however, no previous study has considered all of these factors together. Here we show that 84% of the 147 grassland plant species studied in 17 biodiversity experiments promoted ecosystem functioning at least once. Different species promoted ecosystem functioning during different years, at different places, for different functions and under different environmental change scenarios. Furthermore, the species needed to provide one function during multiple years were not the same as those needed to provide multiple functions within one year. Our results indicate that even more species will be needed to maintain ecosystem functioning and services than previously suggested by studies that have either (1) considered only the number of species needed to promote one function under one set of environmental conditions, or (2) separately considered the importance of biodiversity for providing ecosystem functioning across multiple years10,11,12,13,14, places15,16, functions14,17,18 or environmental change scenarios12,19,20,21,22. Therefore, although species may appear functionally redundant when one function is considered under one set of environmental conditions7, many species are needed to maintain multiple functions at multiple times and places in a changing world.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Some of the ways that biodiversity can be important for ecosystem functioning.
Figure 2: Sets of study species that promoted ecosystem functioning.
Figure 3: The proportion of study species that promoted ecosystem functioning increased when more (a) years, (b) places, (c) ecosystem functions and (d) environmental change scenarios were independently considered.
Figure 4: The number of study species that promoted ecosystem functioning increased with the number of contexts considered across all studies.

References

  1. 1

    Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294, 804–808 (2001)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Balvanera, P. et al. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1146–1156 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443, 989–992 (2006)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Naeem, S., Bunker, D. E., Hector, A., Loreau, M. & Perrings, C. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am. J. Bot. 98, 572–592 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Ridder, B. Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 781–790 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Duffy, J. E. Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ 7, 437–444 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    McNaughton, S. J. Diversity and stability of ecological communities: a comment on the role of empiricism in ecology. Am. Nat. 111, 515–525 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–1468 (1999)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Craine, J. M. et al. The role of plant species in biomass production and response to elevated CO2 and N. Ecol. Lett. 6, 623–630 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Tilman, D., Reich, P. B. & Knops, J. M. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441, 629–632 (2006)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Zavaleta, E. S., Pasari, J. R., Hulvey, K. B. & Tilman, G. D. Sustaining multiple ecosystem functions in grassland communities requires higher biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1443–1446 (2010)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Gonzalez, A. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 12765–12770 (2003)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Griffin, J. N. et al. Spatial heterogeneity increases the importance of species richness for an ecosystem process. Oikos 118, 1335–1342 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Hector, A. & Bagchi, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448, 188–190 (2007)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Gamfeldt, L., Hillebrand, H. & Jonsson, P. R. Multiple functions increase the importance of biodiversity for overall ecosystem functioning. Ecology 89, 1223–1231 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Reich, P. B. et al. Plant diversity enhances ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 and nitrogen deposition. Nature 410, 809–812 (2001)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Weigelt, A., Weisser, W. W., Buchmann, N. & Scherer-Lorenzen, M. Biodiversity for multifunctional grasslands: equal productivity in high-diversity low-input and low-diversity high-input systems. Biogeosciences 6, 1695–1706 (2009)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Wilsey, B. J., Teaschner, T. B., Daneshgar, P. P., Isbell, F. I. & Polley, H. W. Biodiversity maintenance mechanisms differ between native and novel exotic-dominated communities. Ecol. Lett. 12, 432–442 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Isbell, F. I. & Wilsey, B. J. Increasing native, but not exotic, biodiversity increases aboveground productivity in ungrazed and intensely grazed grasslands. Oecologia 165, 771–781 (2011)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Isbell, F. I., Losure, D. A., Yurkonis, K. A. & Wilsey, B. J. Diversity–productivity relationships in two ecologically realistic rarity and extinction scenarios. Oikos 117, 996–1005 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Tilman, D. et al. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294, 843–845 (2001)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    van Ruijven, J. & Berendse, F. Long-term persistence of a positive plant diversity–productivity relationship in the absence of legumes. Oikos 118, 101–106 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Kirwan, L. et al. Evenness drives consistent diversity effects in intensive grassland systems across 28 European sites. J. Ecol. 95, 530–539 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18123–18128 (2007)

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Ehrlich, P. & Ehrlich, A. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (Victor Gollancz, 1982)

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Lawton, J. H. Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84, 177–192 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Nyfeler, D. et al. Strong mixture effects among four species in fertilized agricultural grassland led to persistent and consistent transgressive overyielding. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 683–691 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Calcagno, V. & de Mazancourt, C. glmulti: an R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J. Stat. Softw. 34, 1–29 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Efron, B. & Tibshirani, R. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat. Sci. 1, 54–77 (1986)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Manly, B. F. J. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Byrnes, L. Gamfeldt and M. Emmerson for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We thank the Swiss SystemsX.ch initiative (IPP-2008/23) for supporting this project. The BIODEPTH project was funded by the European Commission within the Framework IV Environment and Climate Programme (ENV-CT95-0008) and by the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science (Project EU-1311). The Jena Experiment was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, FOR 456), Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Max Planck Society, University of Zurich, Swiss National Science Foundation (3100AO-107531) and ETH Zurich. The Wageningen experiment was funded by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) within the framework of the Biodiversity Programme. Work on the Agrodiversity experiment was funded by the EU Commission through COST Action 852 and Science Foundation Ireland (09/RFP/EOB2546). The BioCON experiment was funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE/DE-FG02-96ER62291) and the US National Science Foundation (Biocomplexity 0322057, LTER DEB 9411972, DEB 0080382, DEB 0620652 and LTREB DEB 0716587). The MEND Irrigation, BioGEN and Rarity–Extinction experiments were funded by the US National Science Foundation (DEB 0639417). The Cedar Creek Biodiversity experiment was funded by the US National Science Foundation. M.L. was supported by The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant) and the Canada Research Chair program.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

F.I. conceived the project; J.C., A.H., F.I., P.B.R., M.S.-L., B.S., D.T., J.v.R., A.W. and B.J.W. designed and conducted experiments; F.I. and V.C. analysed the data, with input from A.H. and M.L.; F.I. wrote the paper with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Forest Isbell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Figures 1-2 with legends and a table of Supplementary References. (PDF 281 kb)

Supplementary Data

This file contains details for each context: experiment, year, place, function, environmental change scenario, and whether each species promoted (1), decreased (-1), or had no effect (0) on ecosystem functioning. NA indicates species was not included in context. (XLS 1203 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A. et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10282

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.