A general meta‐ecosystem model to predict ecosystem functions at landscape extents

Abstract

The integration of ecosystem processes over large spatial extents is critical to predicting whether and how local and global changes may impact biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Yet, there remains an important gap in meta‐ecosystem models to predict multiple functions (e.g. carbon sequestration, elemental cycling, trophic efficiency) across ecosystem types (e.g. terrestrial‐aquatic, benthic‐pelagic). We derive a flexible meta‐ecosystem model to predict ecosystem functions at landscape extents by integrating the spatial dimension of natural systems as spatial networks of different habitat types connected by cross‐ecosystem flows of materials and organisms. We partition the physical connectedness of ecosystems from the spatial flow rates of materials and organisms, allowing the representation of all types of connectivity across ecosystem boundaries. Through simulating a forest‐lake‐stream meta‐ecosystem, our model illustrates that even if spatial flows induced significant local losses of nutrients, differences in local ecosystem efficiencies could lead to increased secondary production at regional scale. This emergent result, which we dub the ‘cross‐ecosystem efficiency hypothesis', emphasizes the importance of integrating ecosystem diversity and complementarity in meta‐ecosystem models to generate empirically testable hypotheses for ecosystem functions.

Connectivity mediates the spatial ecological impacts of a glyphosate-based herbicide in experimental metaecosystems

“…This process can ultimately lead to highly modi ed landscapes (Scheffer et (Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008). Therefore, what happens in one location can have ecological consequences downstream from the source of pollution and throughout the network of ecosystems, ultimately altering local and regional community structure and ecosystem functioning (Rumschlag et al 2020;Harvey et al 2023). In this study, and in a metaecosystem context, structural connectivity is referred as the physical relationship between nodes (node habitat position) whereas functional connectivity refers to ow which can accelerate or reduce movement of organisms between nodes.…”

Modelling biological and resource fluxes in fluvial meta-ecosystems

“…This flow enables relatively large fluxes of energy, nutrients, and organisms and has profound implications for community assembly and ecosystem functioning (EF). Recent developments in the theory of meta-ecosystems have provided a solid conceptual framework for describing how both organisms and material interact in such a spatial context, and how this interaction can influence the spatial distribution of EF (Loreau et al 2003;Gravel et al 2010;Harvey et al 2023). Moreover, the actual spatial structure of the river network, and the degree to which this structure differentially influences the movement of organisms and materials, may significantly impact EF at the scale of the entire network (Talluto et al {in press}).…”

Predicting ecosystem pattern across landscapes

“…Ecosystems occur in geographic space (Pickett and Candenasso 2002, O'Neill 2001) and space has long been recognized as a fundamental property mediating the expression of ecosystem heterogeneity (Rowe 1961) across both spatial and temporal extents. Yet until recently, advances in spatially explicit ecosystem modelling have occurred within the somewhat independent disciplines of ecosystem and landscape ecology (Loreau et al 2003, Newman et al 2019, Harvey et al 2023). The latter discipline has commonly considered ecosystems and ecosystem processes as landscape components, focusing on their contributions to spatial heterogeneity (Pickett and Cadenasso 1995).…”

“…Ecosystem ecologists have, in turn, mainly concentrated their attention on the exchange of organisms, energy, materials – particularly resources such as inorganic nutrients – along continuous geographic gradients or categorical landscape mosaics (Massol et al 2011, Gounand et al 2018). Their approach – sometimes called ‘spatial or landscape ecosystem ecology' (sensu Loreau et al 2003) – often uses the meta‐ecosystem as an analytical unit (Massol et al 2011) and frequently relies on mathematical models (Harvey et al 2023). However, current perspectives in spatial ecosystem ecology (Leroux et al 2017, Gounand et al 2018, Harvey et al 2023) call for improved integration of ecosystem and meta‐ecosystem models with real‐world landscape contexts to inform conservation policy.…”

“…Their approach – sometimes called ‘spatial or landscape ecosystem ecology' (sensu Loreau et al 2003) – often uses the meta‐ecosystem as an analytical unit (Massol et al 2011) and frequently relies on mathematical models (Harvey et al 2023). However, current perspectives in spatial ecosystem ecology (Leroux et al 2017, Gounand et al 2018, Harvey et al 2023) call for improved integration of ecosystem and meta‐ecosystem models with real‐world landscape contexts to inform conservation policy. Thus far, this synthesis of landscape and ecosystem ecology has predominantly been championed through spatially explicit models of ecosystem functional properties (Leroux and Loreau 2012, Gounand et al 2018, Soranno et al 2019).…”