Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Local loss and spatial homogenization of plant diversity reduce ecosystem multifunctionality

Abstract

Biodiversity is declining in many local communities while also becoming increasingly homogenized across space. Experiments show that local plant species loss reduces ecosystem functioning and services, but the role of spatial homogenization of community composition and the potential interaction between diversity at different scales in maintaining ecosystem functioning remains unclear, especially when many functions are considered (ecosystem multifunctionality). We present an analysis of eight ecosystem functions measured in 65 grasslands worldwide. We find that more diverse grasslands—those with both species-rich local communities (α-diversity) and large compositional differences among localities (β-diversity)—had higher levels of multifunctionality. Moreover, α- and β-diversity synergistically affected multifunctionality, with higher levels of diversity at one scale amplifying the contribution to ecological functions at the other scale. The identity of species influencing ecosystem functioning differed among functions and across local communities, explaining why more diverse grasslands maintained greater functionality when more functions and localities were considered. These results were robust to variation in environmental drivers. Our findings reveal that plant diversity, at both local and landscape scales, contributes to the maintenance of multiple ecosystem services provided by grasslands. Preserving ecosystem functioning therefore requires conservation of biodiversity both within and among ecological communities.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Local species richness (\(\bar{{\boldsymbol{\alpha }}}\)-diversity) and community dissimilarity (β-diversity) interact to affect average multifunctionality.
Fig. 2: Simulating reduced ecological interactions between local communities did not influence the relationships of plant diversity with average multifunctionality.
Fig. 3: Dissimilarity in functionally important species contributes to ecosystem multifunctionality.

References

  1. 1.

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Naeem, S., Bunker, D. E., Hector, A., Loreau, M. & Perrings, C. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, & Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective Vol. 44 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2010).

  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.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hautier, Y. et al. Anthropogenic environmental changes affect ecosystem stability via biodiversity. Science 348, 336–340 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    van der Plas, F. et al. Biotic homogenization can decrease landscape-scale forest multifunctionality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3557–3562 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Pasari, J. R., Levia, T., Zavaletaa, E. S. & Tilman, D. Several scales of biodiversity affect ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10219–10222 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Murphy, G. E. P. & Romanuk, T. N. A meta-analysis of declines in local species richness from human disturbances. Ecol. Evol. 4, 91–103 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    McKinney, M. L. & Lockwood, J. L. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 450–453 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Vellend, M. et al. Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19456–19459 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dornelas, M. et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science 344, 296–299 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ferrier, S. et al. Mapping more of terrestrial biodiversity for global conservation assessment. Bioscience 54, 1101–1109 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Isbell, F. et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Isbell, F. et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity — ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857–874 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Borer, E. T. et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 63–73 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mori, A. S. et al. Low multifunctional redundancy of soil fungal diversity at multiple scales. Ecol. Lett. 19, 249–259 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Byrnes, J. E. K. et al. Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: challenges and solutions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 111–124 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Maestre, F. T. et al. Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science 335, 214–218 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gotelli, N. J., Ulrich, W. & Maestre, F. T. Randomization tests for quantifying species importance to ecosystem function. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 634–642 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    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).

  26. 26.

    Wagg, C., Bender, S. F., Widmer, F. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5266–5270 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 7, 10541 (2016).

  28. 28.

    Jing, X. et al. The links between ecosystem multifunctionality and above- and belowground biodiversity are mediated by climate. Nat. Commun. 6, 9159 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Olson, J. Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44, 322–331 (1963).

  30. 30.

    O’Halloran, L. R. et al. Regional contingencies in the relationship between aboveground biomass and litter in the world’s grasslands. PLoS ONE 8, e54988 (2013).

  31. 31.

    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 

  32. 32.

    Peter, H. et al. Multifunctionality and diversity in bacterial biofilms. PLoS ONE 6, e23225 (2011).

  33. 33.

    Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hautier, Y. et al. Eutrophication weakens stabilizing effects of diversity in natural grasslands. Nature 508, 521–525 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    He, J. Z., Ge, Y., Xu, Z. H. & Chen, C. R. Linking soil bacterial diversity to ecosystem multifunctionality using backward-elimination boosted trees analysis. J. Soils Sediments 9, 547–554 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. A. Generalized Linear Models 2nd edn (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 1989).

  37. 37.

    Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Springer, New York, 2002).

  38. 38.

    Johnson, J. B. & Omland, K. S. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 101–108 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 298935 to Y.H. (with A.H. and E.W.S.). This work was generated using data from the Nutrient Network (http://www.nutnet.org) experiment, funded at the site scale by individual researchers. Coordination and data management have been supported by funding from the National Science Foundation Research Coordination Network (NSF-DEB-1042132) to E.T.B. and E.W.S, and from the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) programme (NSF-DEB-1234162), and the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota (DG-0001-13). We also thank the Minnesota Supercomputer Institute for hosting project data, and the Institute on the Environment for hosting Network meetings. We thank R. S. L. Veiga for suggestions that improved the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.H., F.I. and A.H. developed and framed research questions. Y.H., F.I. and A.H. analysed the data and wrote the paper with contributions and input from all authors. E.T.B., E.W.S., K.L.P. and J.D.B. contributed to data analysis. E.W.S., E.T.B., W.S.H. and E.M.L. are Nutrient Network coordinators. All authors collected data used in this analysis. The author contribution matrix is provided as Supplementary Table 6.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Hautier.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–8, Supplementary Tables 1–6

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hautier, Y., Isbell, F., Borer, E.T. et al. Local loss and spatial homogenization of plant diversity reduce ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 50–56 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0395-0

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links