replying to Felícia M. Fischer and Francesco de Bello npj Biodiversity https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00029-z (2023)
In our Comment, we outlined that the term functional redundancy (1) may have been overused from an ecological perspective and (2) can be dangerous and misleading in scientific communication1. As a constructive way forward, we proposed to use the concept of “functional similarity” with regard to specific ecosystem functions to better highlight the unique contributions of all coexisting species to ecosystem functioning (Fig. 1). Moreover, we argued that functional similarity better describes gradients in niche overlap while having a less negative connotation. We were motivated to propose this change in terminology because of the intense public discourse on biodiversity-related topics and the potential of misinterpretation that may be caused by the mostly negative connotation that is associated with redundancy (see common definitions below).
Fischer and de Bello (hereafter F23) suggest that the term “functional redundancy” has merits that should not be overlooked2. We appreciate several of their arguments, yet still question the utility of the term. The crux of their argument hinges upon appreciating a more nuanced interpretation of the term redundancy rather than abandoning it. In particular, they suggest that species may be redundant with respect to some traits (e.g., effect traits), but still differ with respect to other traits (e.g., response traits). We agree that species’ abiotic requirements and their role in ecosystem functioning are both important. Indeed, we recently described the role of environmental heterogeneity as a key component of species coexistence, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning3. However, we maintain that it is problematic to describe species as functionally redundant when key aspects of their biology differ (Fig. 1). Nonetheless, we accept their call for added specificity and quantification of the detailed ways in which species are similar and how they differ. In this way, they emphasize the need to decompose species diversity, functional diversity, and functional redundancy into independent components. We agree this is a promising way forward4,5.
F23 argue that BEF experiments with random biodiversity loss scenarios may not reflect natural biodiversity loss that is highly trait dependent2. This basically repeats previous critiques6, but ignores the fact that environmental change is highly multifaceted and hard to predict7,8, and that recent comparisons between BEF experiments and real-world observations have provided consistent conclusions9,10,11.
F23 suggest that redundancy should be interpreted positively, and it should be perceived as reinforcing the safeness of ecosystems2. We appreciate the additional example, suggesting that redundancy has positive connotations in the field of engineering. Nonetheless, this merely emphasizes that this is a value-loaded term. In some cases, redundancy is perceived as “good” (e.g., it is associated with safety in engineering). In other cases, redundancy has a “bad” connotation (e.g., it is associated with being expendable in the workforce). The negative perception of being unnecessary is supported by the definition of “redundancy” in the Cambridge Dictionary: (1) a situation in which someone loses their job because their employer does not need them; (2) a situation in which something is unnecessary because it is more than is needed; (3) the unnecessary use of more than one word or phrase meaning the same thing12. Further synonyms include jobless, dismissed, sacked, unemployed, laid off, and out of work12.
Thus, redundancy in everyday language use, thus, clearly does not have a strong positive connotation. But, either way, we should be cognizant of misperceptions when using emotive language that may bias readers in unintended ways. Communicating about biodiversity is complex enough. Having to explain the intended meaning of the word “redundancy” places an unnecessary burden on that kind of communication and opens the door to misunderstandings that could be avoided by using a different term, as we propose. Importantly, much communication with the public is often done by science journalists and press offices, not by scientists who will be fully familiar with technical vocabulary.
“Similarity” and “dissimilarity” are concepts that are widely used in ecology (e.g., in community ecology) and also beyond. Although these terms also present some limitations2, their meaning is unlikely to give rise to misunderstanding, and they capture the essence of what they should express. We thus strongly suggest moving to this new terminology. Changing ecological terminology is commonly done12,13, but often awkward since different terms are used in parallel for a time, and thus any such change typically meets with resistance; but in the long run, replacing problematic terminology can come with tangible benefits for a field of science. As explained here and in our original paper, we think this is the case for the suggested replacement of “redundancy”1.
References
Eisenhauer, N., Hines, J., Maestre, F. T. & Rillig, M. C. Reconsidering functional redundancy in biodiversity research. NPJ Biodiversity 2, 9 (2023).
Fischer, F. M. & de Bello, F. On the uniqueness of functional redundancy. NPJ Biodiversity 2, 9 (2023).
Eisenhauer, N. et al. The heterogeneity–diversity–system performance nexus. Natl Sci. Rev. 10, nwad109 (2023).
Jops, K. & O’Dwyer, J. P. Life history complementarity and the maintenance of biodiversity. Nature 618, 986–991 (2023).
Craven, D. et al. Multiple facets of biodiversity drive the diversity-stability relationship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1579–1587 (2018).
Wardle, D. Do experiments exploring plant diversity-ecosystem functioning relationships inform how biodiversity loss impacts natural ecoystems? J. Veg. Sci. 27, 646–653 (2016).
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Biodiversity-ecosystem function experiments reveal the mechanisms underlying the consequences of biodiversity change in real world ecosystems. J. Veg. Sci. 27, 1061–1070 (2016).
Rillig, M. C. et al. The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and microbial biodiversity. Science 366, 886–890 (2019).
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).
Jochum, M. et al. The results of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning experiments are realistic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1485–1494 (2020).
Oelmann, Y. et al. Above- and below ground biodiversity jointly tighten the P cycle in agricultural grasslands. Nat. Commun. 12, 4431 (2021).
Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (Cambridge University Press & Assessment, 2023).
Herrando-Pérez, S., Brook, B. W. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Ecology needs a convention of nomenclature. Bioscience 64, 311–321 (2014).
Weigelt, A. et al. An integrated framework of plant form and function: the belowground perspective. New Phytol. 232, 42–59 (2021).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge support by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, FZT 118), as well as the DFG grant Ei 862/29-1 to N.E. The Jena Experiment is funded by the German Research Foundation (FOR 5000).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the initial draft and revisions of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Eisenhauer, N., Hines, J. & Rillig, M.C. Reply: Functional similarity is more appropriate than functional redundancy. npj biodivers 2, 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00030-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00030-6