Abstract
The impact of local biodiversity loss on ecosystem functioning is well established, but the role of larger-scale biodiversity dynamics in the delivery of ecosystem services remains poorly understood. Here we address this gap using a comprehensive dataset describing the supply of 16 cultural, regulating and provisioning ecosystem services in 150 European agricultural grassland plots, and detailed multi-scale data on land use and plant diversity. After controlling for land-use and abiotic factors, we show that both plot-level and surrounding plant diversity play an important role in the supply of cultural and aboveground regulating ecosystem services. In contrast, provisioning and belowground regulating ecosystem services are more strongly driven by field-level management and abiotic factors. Structural equation models revealed that surrounding plant diversity promotes ecosystem services both directly, probably by fostering the spill-over of ecosystem service providers from surrounding areas, and indirectly, by maintaining plot-level diversity. By influencing the ecosystem services that local stakeholders prioritized, biodiversity at different scales was also shown to positively influence a wide range of stakeholder groups. These results provide a comprehensive picture of which ecosystem services rely most strongly on biodiversity, and the respective scales of biodiversity that drive these services. This key information is required for the upscaling of biodiversity–ecosystem service relationships, and the informed management of biodiversity within agricultural landscapes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
This work is based on data from several projects of the Biodiversity Exploratories programme (DFG Priority Program 1374). The data used for analyses are publicly available from the Biodiversity Exploratories Information System (https://doi.org/10.17616/R32P9Q), or will become publicly available after an embargo period of 3 years from the end of data assembly to give the owners and collectors of the data time to perform their analysis. Any other relevant data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).
Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).
Hector, A. et al. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286, 1123–1127 (1999).
Soliveres, S. et al. Biodiversity at multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 536, 456–459 (2016).
Gross, N. et al. Functional trait diversity maximizes ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0132 (2017).
van der Plas, F. et al. Towards the development of general rules describing landscape heterogeneity–multifunctionality relationships. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 168–179 (2019).
Jochum, M. et al. The results of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning experiments are realistic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1485–1494 (2020).
Duffy, J. E., Godwin, C. M. & Cardinale, B. J. Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature 549, 261–264 (2017).
van der Plas, F. et al. Biotic homogenization can decrease landscape-scale forest multifunctionality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E2549–E2549 (2016).
Isbell, F. et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011).
Hautier, Y. et al. Local loss and spatial homogenization of plant diversity reduce ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 50–56 (2018).
Srivastava, D. S. & Vellend, M. Biodiversity–ecosystem function research: is it relevant to conservation? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 267–294 (2005).
Isbell, F. et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72 (2017).
Mori, A. S., Isbell, F. & Seidl, R. β-Diversity, community assembly, and ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 549–564 (2018).
Chase, J. M. & Knight, T. M. Scale-dependent effect sizes of ecological drivers on biodiversity: why standardised sampling is not enough. Ecol. Lett. 16, 17–26 (2013).
Chase, J. M. et al. Embracing scale-dependence to achieve a deeper understanding of biodiversity and its change across communities. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1737–1751 (2018).
Barry, K. E. et al. The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 167–180 (2019).
Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).
Hagan, J. G., Vanschoenwinkel, B. & Gamfeldt, L. We should not necessarily expect positive relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in observational field data. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2537–2548 (2021).
Brose, U. & Hillebrand, H. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in dynamic landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150267 (2016).
Isbell, F. et al. Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable agroecosystems. J. Ecol. 105, 871–879 (2017).
Tscharntke, T. et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes-eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. 87, 661–685 (2012).
Ricotta, C. On beta diversity decomposition: trouble shared is not trouble halved. Ecology 91, 1981–1983 (2010).
Kraft, N. J. B. et al. Disentangling the drivers of β diversity along latitudinal and elevational gradients. Science 333, 1755–1758 (2011).
Gonthier, D. J. et al. Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 281, 20141358 (2014).
Flynn, D. F. et al. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12, 22–33 (2009).
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
Allan, E. et al. Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecol. Lett. 18, 834–843 (2015).
Le Provost, G. et al. Land-use history impacts functional diversity across multiple trophic groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 1573–1579 (2020).
Adl, S. M., Coleman, D. C. & Read, F. Slow recovery of soil biodiversity in sandy loam soils of Georgia after 25 years of no-tillage management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 323–334 (2006).
Le Provost, G. et al. Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity. Nat. Commun. 12, 3918 (2021).
James, L. A. Legacy effects. Oxford Bibliographies in Environmental Science https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199363445-0019 (2015).
Lamy, T., Liss, K. N., Gonzalez, A. & Bennett, E. M. Landscape structure affects the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124017 (2016).
Alsterberg, C. et al. Habitat diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality—the importance of direct and indirect effects. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601475 (2017).
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).
Gámez-Virués, S. et al. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat. Commun. 6, 8568 (2015).
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A. & Wilson, J. D. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 182–188 (2003).
Bullock, J. M., Aronson, J., Newton, A. C., Pywell, R. F. & Rey-Benayas, J. M. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 541–549 (2011).
Dainese, M. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0121 (2019).
Mitchell, M. G. E., Bennett, E. M. & Gonzalez, A. Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16, 894–908 (2013).
Fischer, M. et al. Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: The Biodiversity Exploratories. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 473–485 (2010).
Blüthgen, N. et al. A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands: Integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization. Basic Appl. Ecol. 13, 207–220 (2012).
Vogt, J. et al. Eleven years’ data of grassland management in Germany. Biodivers. Data J. 7, e36387 (2019).
Manning, P. et al. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 427–436 (2018).
Linders, T. E. W. et al. Stakeholder priorities determine the impact of an alien tree invasion on ecosystem multifunctionality. People Nat. 3, 658–672 (2021).
Nathan, R. Long-distance dispersal of plants. Science 313, 786–788 (2006).
Manning, P. et al. Grassland management intensification weakens the associations among the diversities of multiple plant and animal taxa. Ecology 96, 1492–1501 (2015).
Clough, Y. et al. Density of insect-pollinated grassland plants decreases with increasing surrounding land-use intensity. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1168–1177 (2014).
Vickery, J. A. et al. The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 647–664 (2001).
López-Jamar, J., Casas, F., Díaz, M. & Morales, M. B. Local differences in habitat selection by Great Bustards Otis tarda in changing agricultural landscapes: implications for farmland bird conservation. Bird. Conserv. Int. 21, 328–341 (2011).
Wells, K., Böhm, S. M., Boch, S., Fischer, M. & Kalko, E. K. Local and landscape-scale forest attributes differ in their impact on bird assemblages across years in forest production landscapes. Basic Appl. Ecol. 12, 97–106 (2011).
Bommarco, R., Lindborg, R., Marini, L. & Öckinger, E. Extinction debt for plants and flower-visiting insects in landscapes with contrasting land use history. Divers. Distrib. 20, 591–599 (2014).
Kuussaari, M. et al. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 564–571 (2009).
Lee, M., Manning, P., Rist, J., Power, S. A. & Marsh, C. A global comparison of grassland biomass responses to CO2 and nitrogen enrichment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2047–2056 (2010).
Smith, P. Do grasslands act as a perpetual sink for carbon? Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2708–2711 (2014).
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).
Bradford, M. A. et al. Discontinuity in the responses of ecosystem processes and multifunctionality to altered soil community composition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14478–14483 (2014).
Schaub, S. et al. Plant diversity effects on forage quality, yield and revenues of semi-natural grasslands. Nat. Commun. 11, 768 (2020).
Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).
Peter, S., Le Provost, G., Mehring, M., Müller, T. & Manning, P. Cultural worldviews consistently explain bundles of ecosystem service prioritisation across rural Germany. People Nat. 4, 218–230 (2022).
Emmerson, M. et al. How agricultural intensification affects biodiversity and ecosystem services. Adv. Ecol. Res. 55, 43–97 (2016).
Gonzalez, A. et al. Scaling-up biodiversity–ecosystem functioning research. Ecol. Lett. 23, 757–776 (2020).
Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Gonzalez, A. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 12765–12770 (2003).
Anderson, B. J. et al. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 888–896 (2009).
Maes, J. et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 31–39 (2012).
Metzger, J. P. et al. Considering landscape-level processes in ecosystem service assessments. Sci. Total Environ. 796, 149028 (2021).
Costanza, R. et al. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16 (2017).
DeFries, R. & Nagendra, H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356, 265–270 (2017).
Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).
Schenk, N. et al. Assembled ecosystem measures from grassland EPs (2008–2018) for multifunctionality synthesis—June 2020. Version 40. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/27087 (2022).
Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, M. & Mueller, S. Acoustic diversity index based on environmental sound recordings on all forest EPs, HAI, 2016. Version 2. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/27568 (2020).
Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, M. & Mueller, S. Acoustic diversity index based on environmental sound recordings on all forest EPs, Alb, 2016. Version 2. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/27569 (2020).
Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, M. & Mueller, S. Acoustic diversity index based on environmental sound recordings on all forest EPs, SCH, 2016. Version 2. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/27570 (2020).
Penone, C. et al. Assembled RAW diversity from grassland EPs (2008–2020) for multidiversity synthesis—November 2020. Version 2. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/27707 (2021).
Penone, C. et al. Assembled species information from grassland EPs (2008–2020) for multidiversity synthesis—November 2020. Version 3. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/27706 (2021).
Junge, X., Schüpbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B. & Lindemann-Matthies, P. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 133, 67–77 (2015).
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X. & Matthies, D. The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 143, 195–202 (2010).
Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf (2018)
Byrnes, J. E. et al. Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: challenges and solutions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 111–124 (2014).
Neyret, M. et al. Assessing the impact of grassland management on landscape multifunctionality. Ecosyst. Serv. 52, 101366 (2021).
Ferraro, D. M. et al. The phantom chorus: birdsong boosts human well-being in protected areas. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201811 (2020).
Graves, R. A., Pearson, S. M. & Turner, M. G. Species richness alone does not predict cultural ecosystem service value. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3774–3779 (2017).
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T. & Goldstein, J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18 (2012).
Villamagna, A. M., Angermeier, P. L. & Bennett, E. M. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol. Complex. 15, 114–121 (2013).
Bolliger, R., Prati, D., Fischer, M., Hoelzel, N. & Busch, V. Vegetation Records for Grassland EPs, 2008–2018. Version 2. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/24247 (2020).
Le Provost, G. & Manning, P. Cover of all vascular plant species in representative 2x2 quadrats of the major surrounding homogeneous vegetation zones in a 75-m radius of the 150 grassland EPs, 2017–2018. Version 4. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/27846 (2021).
Koleff, P., Gaston, K. J. & Lennon, J. J. Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data. J. Anim. Ecol. 72, 367–382 (2003).
Baselga, A. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 134–143 (2010).
Ostrowski, A., Lorenzen, K., Petzold, E. & Schindler, S. Land use intensity index (LUI) calculation tool of the Biodiversity Exploratories project for grassland survey data from three different regions in Germany since 2006, BEXIS 2 module. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3865579 (2020).
Thiele, J., Weisser, W. & Scherreiks, P. Historical land use and landscape metrics of grassland EP. Version 2. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/25747 (2020).
Steckel, J. et al. Landscape composition and configuration differently affect trap-nesting bees, wasps and their antagonists. Biol. Conserv. 172, 56–64 (2014).
Westphal, C., Steckel, J. & Rothenwöhrer, C. InsectScale / LANDSCAPES - Landscape heterogeneity metrics (grassland EPs, radii 500 m–2000 m, 2009) - shape files. Version 2. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/24046 (2019).
Fahrig, L. et al. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 14, 101–112 (2011).
Sirami, C. et al. Increasing crop heterogeneity enhances multitrophic diversity across agricultural regions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 16442–16447 (2019).
Gessler, P. E., Moore, I. D., Mckenzie, N. J. & Ryan, P. J. Soil–landscape modelling and spatial prediction of soil attributes. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 9, 421–432 (1995).
Zinko, U., Seibert, J., Dynesius, M. & Nilsson, C. Plant species numbers predicted by a topography-based groundwater flow index. Ecosystems 8, 430–441 (2005).
Moeslund, J. E. et al. Topographically controlled soil moisture drives plant diversity patterns within grasslands. Biodivers. Conserv. 22, 2151–2166 (2013).
Keddy, P. A. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 3, 157–164 (1992).
Myers, M. C., Mason, J. T., Hoksch, B. J., Cambardella, C. A. & Pfrimmer, J. D. Birds and butterflies respond to soil-induced habitat heterogeneity in experimental plantings of tallgrass prairie species managed as agroenergy crops in Iowa, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1176–1187 (2015).
Carvalheiro, L. G. et al. Soil eutrophication shaped the composition of pollinator assemblages during the past century. Ecography 43, 209–221 (2020).
Schöning, I., Klötzing, T., Schrumpf, M., Solly, E. & Trumbore, S. Mineral soil pH values of all experimental plots (EP) of the Biodiversity Exploratories project from 2011, Soil (core project). Version 8. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/14447 (2021).
Sørensen, R., Zinko, U. & Seibert, J. On the calculation of the topographic wetness index: evaluation of different methods based on field observations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 101–112 (2006).
Le Provost, G. et al. Aggregated environmental and land-use covariates of the 150 grassland EPs used in ‘Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity’. Version 5. Biodiversity Exploratories Information System https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/ddm/data/Showdata/31018 (2021).
R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
Grace, J. B. Structural equation modeling for observational studies. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 14–22 (2008).
Grace, J. B. Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36 (2012).
Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y. et al. Phylogenetic, functional, and taxonomic richness have both positive and negative effects on ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 8419–8424 (2019).
Acknowledgements
We thank the managers of the three Exploratories, I. Steitz, S. Weithmann, F. Staub, S. Gockel, K. Wiesner, K. Lorenzen, A. Hemp, M. Gorke, M. Teuscher and all former managers for their work in maintaining the plot and project infrastructure; S. Pfeiffer, M. Gleisberg, C. Fischer and J. Mangels for giving support through the central office, J. Nieschulze, M. Owonibi and A. Ostrowski for managing the central database, and E. Linsenmair, D. Hessenmöller, F. Buscot, E.-D. Schulze and the late E. Kalko for their role in setting up the Biodiversity Exploratories project. We thank the administration of the Hainich National Park, the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb and the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin as well as all landowners for the excellent collaboration. The work was partly funded by the DFG Priority Program 1374 ‘Biodiversity-Exploratories’ and by the Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung. C.W. is grateful for being funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Project number 493487387). E.K. is supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, KA1590/8-5). H.S. is supported by a María Zambrano fellowship funded by the Ministry of Universities and European Union-Next Generation plan. M.M.G. acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 310030E-173542). S.M. is supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, MA4436/1-5). P.M. acknowledges support from the German Research Foundation (DFG; MA 7144/1-1). Field work permits were issued by the state environmental offices of Baden-Württemberg, Thüringen and Brandenburg from 2008 to 2021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
G.L.P. and P.M. conceived the study, designed and performed the analyses; G.L.P. and P.M. wrote the manuscript with significant inputs from all authors. Data were contributed by G.L.P., N.V.S., C.P., J.T., C.W., E.A., M.A., N.B., R.S.B., R.B., V.B., M.F., M.M.G., N.H., K.J., E.K., V.H.K., T.K., S.L., S. Marhan, K.M., S. Müller, F.N., Y.O., D.P., S.P., D.J.P., M.C.R., D.S., M.S.-L., M. Schloter, I.S., M. Schrumpf, J.S., I.S.-D., M.T., J.V., C.W., W. Weisser, K.W., M.W., W. Wilcke and P.M. Authorship order was determined as follows: (1) core authors; (2) other authors contributing data and inputs on the manuscript (alphabetical); (3) senior author.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Shaopeng Wang, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Drivers of individual cultural, aboveground regulating and provisioning, and belowground regulating ecosystem services in grasslands.
Total standardized effects were calculated based on the results of structural equation models (considering both direct and indirect effects of the predictors) for each predictor: environmental factors, plot-level (50 m × 50 m) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) land use, and landscape-level (1,000 m radius from the plot centre) land use. The total standardized effects correspond to the sum of standardized direct effects (that is individual paths) and indirect effects (that is the multiplied paths). All predictors were scaled to allow interpretation of parameter estimates on a comparable scale. Plot-level and landscape-level predictors were log-transformed. n = 150 biologically independent samples for birdwatching potential, forage quality, nitrogen retention index, potential nitrification, groundwater recharge; n = 147 biologically independent samples for lack of herbivory; n = 146 biologically independent samples for soil carbon stocks; n = 142 biologically independent samples for dung decomposition, lack of pathogen infection and shoot biomass; n = 136 biologically independent samples for phosphorus retention index; n = 119 biologically independent samples for pollination; n = 114 biologically independent samples for acoustic diversity; n = 93 biologically independent samples for soil aggregation; n = 83 biologically independent samples for the natural enemy abundance; n = 70 biologically independent samples for the total flower cover.
Extended Data Fig. 2 The multiple drivers of cultural, aboveground regulating and provisioning, and belowground regulating ecosystem services in grasslands considering average-based multifunctionality indices.
Total standardized effects were calculated based on the results of structural equation models (considering both direct and indirect effects of the predictors) for each predictor: environmental factors, plot-level (50 m × 50 m) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) land use, and landscape-level (1,000 m radius from the plot centre) land use. Models were fitted to four multifunctionality measures: cultural, aboveground regulating and provisioning, and belowground regulating ecosystem service multifunctionality. The total standardized effects correspond to the sum of standardized direct effects (that is individual paths) and indirect effects (that is the multiplied paths). For each multifunctionality measure, total standardized effects of the different predictors are ordered from the highest positive effect to the lowest negative effect. All predictors were scaled to allow interpretation of parameter estimates on a comparable scale. Plot-level and landscape-level predictors were log-transformed. n = 150 biologically independent samples.
Extended Data Fig. 3 The multiple drivers of cultural, aboveground regulating and provisioning, and belowground regulating ecosystem services in grasslands considering multifunctionality indices calculated at the 25% (panel on the left) and 75% (panel on the right) thresholds.
Total standardized effects were calculated based on the results of structural equation models (considering both direct and indirect effects of the predictors) for each predictor: environmental factors, plot-level (50 m × 50 m) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) land use, and landscape-level (1,000 m radius from the plot centre) land use. Models were fitted to four multifunctionality measures: cultural, aboveground regulating and provisioning, and belowground regulating ecosystem service multifunctionality. The total standardized effects correspond to the sum of standardized direct effects (that is individual paths) and indirect effects (that is the multiplied paths). For each multifunctionality measure, total standardized effects of the different predictors are ordered from the highest positive effect to the lowest negative effect. All predictors were scaled to allow interpretation of parameter estimates on a comparable scale. Plot-level and landscape-level predictors were log-transformed. n = 150 biologically independent samples.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Drivers of plot-level plant α-diversity, and field-level plant β-diversity and ɣ-diversity.
To assess the surrounding field-level plant diversity of each grassland plot, we surveyed the vegetation within the major surrounding homogeneous vegetation zones in a 75 m radius of each plot (that is field level). These zones were mostly situated within the same grassland-field as the focal plot but we occasionally surveyed other habitat types (c. 20% were situated in hedgerows, margins or forests). We surveyed at least four quadrats in the surroundings of each grassland plot. Total standardized effects were calculated based on the results of structural equation models (considering both direct and indirect effects of the predictors) for each predictor: environmental factors, plot-level (50 m × 50 m) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) land use, and landscape-level (1,000 m radius from the plot centre) land use. The total standardized effects correspond to the sum of standardized direct effects (that is individual paths) and indirect effects (that is the multiplied paths). Total standardized effects of the different predictors are ordered from the highest positive effect to the lowest negative effect. All predictors were scaled to allow interpretation of parameter estimates on a comparable scale. Plot-level and landscape-level predictors were log-transformed. See Supplementary Data Table 2 for the individual path coefficients. n = 150 biologically independent samples.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Drivers of overall ecosystem service multifunctionality, considering (a) a 50% threshold-based index or (b) an average-based index.
Total standardized effects were calculated based on the results of structural equation models (considering both direct and indirect effects of the predictors) for each predictor: environmental factors, plot-level (50 m × 50 m) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) land use, and landscape-level (1,000 m radius from the plot centre) land use. The total standardized effects correspond to the sum of standardized direct effects (that is individual paths) and indirect effects (that is the multiplied paths). For each multifunctionality measure, total standardized effects of the different predictors are ordered from the highest positive effect to the lowest negative effect. All predictors were scaled to allow interpretation of parameter estimates on a comparable scale. Plot-level and landscape-level predictors were log-transformed. n = 150 biologically independent samples.
Extended Data Fig. 6 The multiple drivers of the most prioritized ecosystem services in grasslands by local stakeholders: aesthetic value, biodiversity conservation, fodder production, carbon sequestration.
Total standardized effects were calculated based on the results of structural equation models (considering both direct and indirect effects of the predictors) for each predictor: environmental factors, plot-level (50 m × 50 m) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) plant diversity, field-level (75 m radius from the plot centre) land use, and landscape-level (1,000 m radius from the plot centre) land use. Models were fitted to four ecosystem service supply variables: aesthetic value (that is acoustic diversity and total flower cover, n = 129 independent samples), fodder production (that is shoot biomass and forage quality, n = 150 independent samples), biodiversity conservation (that is birdwatching potential, n = 150 independent samples) and carbon sequestration (that is soil carbon stocks, n = 146 independent samples). The total standardized effects correspond to the sum of standardized direct effects (that is individual paths) and indirect effects (that is the multiplied paths). For each ecosystem service supply variable, total standardized effects of the different predictors are ordered from the highest positive effect to the lowest negative effect. All predictors were scaled to allow interpretation of parameter estimates on a comparable scale. Plot-level and landscape-level predictors were log-transformed.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–3 and references.
Supplementary Data
Supplementary Data 1. Details of the sampling methods for each ecosystem service considered in the analysis. For each ecosystem service, we used a specific indicator measured for one or multiple years. Note that different services were measured on different areas within a given 50 m × 50 m plot. Most data are available at https://doi.org/10.17616/R32P9Q. For more details, see supplementary references. Supplementary Data 2. Path coefficients for the different SEMs fitted to the four multifunctionality measures: cultural, aboveground regulating and provisioning, and belowground regulating ecosystem service multifunctionality. All estimates are standardized path coefficients from the SEMs. Single-headed arrows (→) indicate directional relationships between variables, and double-headed arrows (↔) indicate co-variances between variables. Direct effects correspond to the individual paths (for example, Plant γ-diversity → Cultural ecosystem services), and indirect effects are the multiplied paths (for example, Plant γ-diversity → Plant α-diversity) × (Plant α-diversity → Cultural ecosystem services). n = 150 biologically independent samples. All predictors were scaled to allow interpretation of parameter estimates on a comparable scale.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Le Provost, G., Schenk, N.V., Penone, C. et al. The supply of multiple ecosystem services requires biodiversity across spatial scales. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 236–249 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01918-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01918-5
This article is cited by
-
The role of high-biodiversity regions in preserving Nature’s Contributions to People
Nature Sustainability (2023)
-
Landscape management strategies for multifunctionality and social equity
Nature Sustainability (2023)
-
Scale matters in service supply
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2022)