A rich body of knowledge links biodiversity to ecosystem functioning (BEF), but it is primarily focused on small scales. We review the current theory and identify six expectations for scale dependence in the BEF relationship: (1) a nonlinear change in the slope of the BEF relationship with spatial scale; (2) a scale‐dependent relationship between ecosystem stability and spatial extent; (3) coexistence within and among sites will result in a positive BEF relationship at larger scales; (4) temporal autocorrelation in environmental variability affects species turnover and thus the change in BEF slope with scale; (5) connectivity in metacommunities generates nonlinear BEF and stability relationships by affecting population  synchrony at local and regional scales; (6) spatial scaling in food web structure and diversity will generate scale dependence in ecosystem functioning. We suggest directions for synthesis that combine approaches in metaecosystem and metacommunity ecology and integrate cross‐scale feedbacks. Tests of this theory may combine remote sensing with a generation of networked experiments that assess effects at multiple scales. We also show how anthropogenic land cover change may alter the scaling of the BEF relationship. New research on the role of scale in BEF will guide policy linking the goals of managing biodiversity and ecosystems.

Biological insurance theory predicts that, in a variable environment, aggregate ecosystem properties will vary less in more diverse communities because declines in the performance or abundance of some species or phenotypes will be offset, at least partly, by smoother declines or increases in others. During the past two decades, ecology has accumulated strong evidence for the stabilising effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning. As biological insurance is reaching the stage of a mature theory, it is critical to revisit and clarify its conceptual foundations to guide future developments, applications and measurements. In this review, we first clarify the connections between the insurance and portfolio concepts that have been used in ecology and the economic concepts that inspired them. Doing so points to gaps and mismatches between ecology and economics that could be filled profitably by new theoretical developments and new management applications. Second, we discuss some fundamental issues in biological insurance theory that have remained unnoticed so far and that emerge from some of its recent applications. In particular, we draw a clear distinction between the two effects embedded in biological insurance theory, i.e. the effects of biodiversity on the mean and variability of ecosystem properties. This distinction allows explicit consideration of trade-offs between the mean and stability of ecosystem processes and services. We also review applications of biological insurance theory in ecosystem management. Finally, we provide a synthetic conceptual framework that unifies the various approaches across disciplines, and we suggest new ways in which biological insurance theory could be extended to address new issues in ecology and ecosystem management. Exciting future challenges include linking the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning and stability, incorporating multiple functions and feedbacks, developing new approaches to partition biodiversity effects across scales, extending biological insurance theory to complex interaction networks, and developing new applications to biodiversity and ecosystem management.

Metacommunity theory provides an understanding of how spatial processes determine the structure and function of communities at local and regional scales. Although metacommunity theory has considered trophic dynamics in the past, it has been performed idiosyncratically with a wide selection of possible dynamics. Trophic metacommunity theory needs a synthesis of a few influential axis to simplify future predictions and tests. We propose an extension of metacommunity ecology that addresses these shortcomings by incorporating variability among trophic levels in ‘spatial use properties’. We define ‘spatial use properties’ as a set of traits (dispersal, migration, foraging and spatial information processing) that set the spatial and temporal scales of organismal movement, and thus scales of interspecific interactions. Progress towards a synthetic predictive framework can be made by (1) documenting patterns of spatial use properties in natural food webs and (2) using theory and experiments to test how trophic structure in spatial use properties affects metacommunity dynamics.

High diversity is often poorly explained by trait-based deterministic models, in part because stochastic processes also influence community assembly. Testing how deterministic and stochastic processes combine to regulate diversity, however, has been limited by the spatial complexity of these interactions. Here, we demonstrate how spatial variability in small-mammal predation on plants, mostly by granivory, results in fine-scale switching between deterministically and stochastically regulated plant community assembly in an otherwise environmentally homogeneous tallgrass prairie. We initiated assembly with the uniform application of a 24-species mixture of prairie grasses and forbs, thereby setting the maximum level of diversity (γ-diversity). In field edges with higher densities of small mammals, traits reducing seed palatability deterministically produced homogeneous subsets of less palatable plant species within the first few months after planting (low α and β diversity). As small-mammal densities decreased in more open areas, assembly unfolded stochastically on the basis of which planted species happened to land at a given location (high α and β diversity). We used randomization models to validate that this higher β diversity was explained by true differences in community structure among plots rather than by the hidden effects of increasing α diversity. The net effect at the site level was a spatially structured array of prairie species, including a positive relationship between diversity and environmental suitability relating to reduced predator intensity.

Evolutionary biologists since Darwin have hypothesized that closely related species compete more intensely and are therefore less likely to coexist. However, recent theory posits that species diverge in two ways: either through the evolution of 'stabilizing differences' that promote coexistence by causing individuals to compete more strongly with conspecifics than individuals of other species, or through the evolution of 'fitness differences' that cause species to differ in competitive ability and lead to exclusion of the weaker competitor. We tested macroevolutionary patterns of divergence by competing pairs of annual plant species that differ in their phylogenetic relationships, and in whether they have historically occurred in the same region or different regions (sympatric versus allopatric occurrence). For sympatrically occurring species pairs, stabilizing differences rapidly increased with phylogenetic distance. However, fitness differences also increased with phylogenetic distance, resulting in coexistence outcomes that were unpredictable based on phylogenetic relationships. For allopatric species, stabilizing differences showed no trend with phylogenetic distance, whereas fitness differences increased, causing coexistence to become less likely among distant relatives. Our results illustrate the role of species' historical interactions in shaping how phylogenetic relationships structure competitive dynamics, and offer an explanation for the evolution of invasion potential of non-native species.