Specific plant associations may decrease (associational resistance, AR) or increase (associational susceptibility, AS) the likelihood of detection by, and/or vulnerability to, herbivores. We discuss presumed mechanisms leading to AR and AS, suggest others, and conduct meta-analyses on plant and herbivore traits affecting AR and AS, and the effects of habitat. Specific plant associations determine the likelihood of detection and/or vulnerability of focal plants to herbivores. AS is more likely with insects and AR more likely with mammals. Unpalatable neighbors increase the likelihood of AR. An herbivore's feeding guild, diet breadth, and habitat type do not influence the likelihood of AR or AS. The effectiveness of AR in reducing herbivore abundance is independent of whether neighboring plants are within a plot of focal crops or along the edge of a plot. AR and AS may be applicable to associations among herbivores, and may be appropriately studied from a landscape perspective.

Human activities are fundamentally altering biodiversity. Projections of declines at the global scale are contrasted by highly variable trends at local scales, suggesting that biodiversity change may be spatially structured. Here, we examined spatial variation in species richness and composition change using more than 50,000 biodiversity time series from 239 studies and found clear geographic variation in biodiversity change. Rapid compositional change is prevalent, with marine biomes exceeding and terrestrial biomes trailing the overall trend. Assemblage richness is not changing on average, although locations exhibiting increasing and decreasing trends of up to about 20% per year were found in some marine studies. At local scales, widespread compositional reorganization is most often decoupled from richness change, and biodiversity change is strongest and most variable in the oceans.

A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that biodiversity stabilizes ecosystem functioning over time in grassland ecosystems. However, the relative importance of different facets of biodiversity underlying the diversity-stability relationship remains unclear. Here we use data from 39 grassland biodiversity experiments and structural equation modelling to investigate the roles of species richness, phylogenetic diversity and both the diversity and community-weighted mean of functional traits representing the 'fast-slow' leaf economics spectrum in driving the diversity-stability relationship. We found that high species richness and phylogenetic diversity stabilize biomass production via enhanced asynchrony in the performance of co-occurring species. Contrary to expectations, low phylogenetic diversity enhances ecosystem stability directly, albeit weakly. While the diversity of fast-slow functional traits has a weak effect on ecosystem stability, communities dominated by slow species enhance ecosystem stability by increasing mean biomass production relative to the standard deviation of biomass over time. Our in-depth, integrative assessment of factors influencing the diversity-stability relationship demonstrates a more multicausal relationship than has been previously acknowledged.

Humans have elevated global extinction rates and thus lowered global scale species richness. However, there is no a priori reason to expect that losses of global species richness should always, or even often, trickle down to losses of species richness at regional and local scales, even though this relationship is often assumed. Here, we show that scale can modulate our estimates of species richness change through time in the face of anthropogenic pressures, but not in a unidirectional way. Instead, the magnitude of species richness change through time can increase, decrease, reverse, or be unimodal across spatial scales. Using several case studies, we show different forms of scale‐dependent richness change through time in the face of anthropogenic pressures. For example, Central American corals show a homogenization pattern, where small scale richness is largely unchanged through time, while larger scale richness change is highly negative. Alternatively, birds in North America showed a differentiation effect, where species richness was again largely unchanged through time at small scales, but was more positive at larger scales. Finally, we collated data from a heterogeneous set of studies of different taxa measured through time from sites ranging from small plots to entire continents, and found highly variable patterns that nevertheless imply complex scale‐dependence in several taxa. In summary, understanding how biodiversity is changing in the Anthropocene requires an explicit recognition of the influence of spatial scale, and we conclude with some recommendations for how to better incorporate scale into our estimates of change.

Summary1. Three common goals for restoration are (i) rapid plant establishment, (ii) long-term plant persistence and (iii) restoration of functioning ecosystems. Restoration practitioners often use cultivars optimized for rapid plant establishment under highly disturbed conditions to achieve the first goal; locally adapted genotypes are championed for the second because they can be well suited for local environmental conditions. Restoring functioning ecosystems is considered a loftier goal that practitioners struggle to achieve because we lack proven techniques. 2. Similar to the demonstrated benefits of species, functional and phylogenetic diversity for ecosystem functions (EFs), recent genetic diversity (GD)-ecosystem function (EF) experiments have shown that increases in plant GD can positively influence many different EFs. Would the introduction of diverse plant genotypes of a given species into a restoration enhance ecosystem functioning and the evolutionary potential of restored populations? 3. In this review, we first examine three propagule-sourcing approaches: cultivar, local adaptation and GD. Next, we raise questions that if addressed, could help practitioners implement a GD approach in restoration: (i) How might the selection, relatedness and arrangement of genotypes be optimized to restore functioning ecosystems, (ii) How do traits that affect an EF relate to neutral or adaptive diversity, more common measures of GD and (iii) at which spatial and temporal scales does GD influence EFs in restorations? 4. Synthesis and applications. Although each propagule-sourcing approach may be best suited for a particular restoration goal, each approach may simultaneously benefit other goals. Yet cultivars and locally adapted populations that have experienced artificial and/or natural selection may not possess the levels of diversity that will confer expected benefits to different ecosystem functions. Future research should determine the relative value of each approach (or a combination of approaches) for simultaneously achieving multiple restoration goals. Restoration experiments, where plant genetic diversity (GD) is manipulated and monitored over scales relevant to restoration, could reveal the true promise of a GD approach to restoration.

Climate change and other anthropogenic drivers of biodiversity change are unequally distributed across the world. Overlap in the distributions of different drivers have important implications for biodiversity change attribution and the potential for interactive effects. However, the spatial relationships among different drivers and whether they differ between the terrestrial and marine realm has yet to be examined. We compiled global gridded datasets on climate change, land‐use, resource exploitation, pollution, alien species potential and human population density. We used multivariate statistics to examine the spatial relationships among the drivers and to characterize the typical combinations of drivers experienced by different regions of the world. We found stronger positive correlations among drivers in the terrestrial than in the marine realm, leading to areas with high intensities of multiple drivers on land. Climate change tended to be negatively correlated with other drivers in the terrestrial realm (e.g. in the tundra and boreal forest with high climate change but low human use and pollution), whereas the opposite was true in the marine realm (e.g. in the Indo‐Pacific with high climate change and high fishing). We show that different regions of the world can be defined by Anthropogenic Threat Complexes (ATCs), distinguished by different sets of drivers with varying intensities. We identify 11 ATCs that can be used to test hypotheses about patterns of biodiversity and ecosystem change, especially about the joint effects of multiple drivers. Our global analysis highlights the broad conservation priorities needed to mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic change, with different priorities emerging on land and in the ocean, and in different parts of the world.

Human activities are accelerating global biodiversity change and have resulted in severely threatened ecosystem services. A large proportion of terrestrial biodiversity is harbored by soil, but soil biodiversity has been omitted from many global biodiversity assessments and conservation actions, and understanding of global patterns of soil biodiversity remains limited. In particular, the extent to which hotspots and coldspots of aboveground and soil biodiversity overlap is not clear. We examined global patterns of these overlaps by mapping indices of aboveground (mammals, birds, amphibians, vascular plants) and soil (bacteria, fungi, macrofauna) biodiversity that we created using previously published data on species richness. Areas of mismatch between aboveground and soil biodiversity covered 27% of Earth's terrestrial surface. The temperate broadleaf and mixed forests biome had the highest proportion of grid cells with high aboveground biodiversity but low soil biodiversity, whereas the boreal and tundra biomes had intermediate soil biodiversity but low aboveground biodiversity. While more data on soil biodiversity are needed, both to cover geographic gaps and to include additional taxa, our results suggest that protecting aboveground biodiversity may not sufficiently reduce threats to soil biodiversity. Given the functional importance of soil biodiversity and the role of soils in human well‐being, soil biodiversity should be considered further in policy agendas and conservation actions by adapting management practices to sustain soil biodiversity and considering soil biodiversity when designing protected areas.

No abstract