Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Functions

Oliver, Tom H.; Heard, Matthew S.; Isaac, Nick J. B.; Roy, David B.; Procter, Deborah A.; Eigenbrod, Felix; Freckleton, Robert P.; Héctor, Andy; Orme, C. David L.; Petchey, Owen L.; Proença, Vânia; Raffaelli, David; Suttle, K. Blake; Mace, Georgina M.; Martín‐López, Berta; Woodcock, Ben A.; Bullock, James M.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.009

Cited by 1,063 publications

(989 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

877

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Understanding how species will respond to environmental perturbation through key response traits and how this will in turn affect functioning through fluctuations in effects traits is important in ascertaining the stability of ecosystem services in a changing environment (Oliver et al. 2015, Jonsson et al. 2017, Perović et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Functional diversity positively affects prey suppression by invertebrate predators: a meta‐analysis

Greenop

Woodcock

Wilby

et al. 2018

Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of pesticides within agricultural ecosystems has led to wide concern regarding negative effects on the environment. One possible alternative is the use of predators of pest species that naturally occur within agricultural ecosystems. However, the mechanistic basis for how species can be manipulated in order to maximize pest control remains unclear. We carried out a meta‐analysis of 51 studies that manipulated predator species richness in reference to suppression of herbivore prey to determine which components of predator diversity affect pest control. Overall, functional diversity (FD) based on predator's habitat domain, diet breadth and hunting strategy was ranked as the most important variable. Our analysis showed that increases in FD in polycultures led to greater prey suppression compared to both the mean of the component predator species, and the most effective predator species, in monocultures. Further analysis of individual traits indicated these effects are likely to be driven by broad niche differentiation and greater resource exploitation in functionally diverse predator communities. A decoupled measure of phylogenetic diversity, whereby the overlap in variation with FD was removed, was not found to be an important driver of prey suppression. Our results suggest that increasing FD in predatory invertebrates will help maximize pest control ecosystem services in agricultural ecosystems, with the potential to increase suppression above that of the most effective predator species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because systems are more resilient to the loss of individual predators as long as their functions are maintained within the ecosystem (Oliver et al. 2015). However, whilst redundancy should theoretically lead to greater ecosystem service stability, this does not always occur.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional diversity positively affects prey suppression by invertebrate predators: a meta‐analysis

Greenop

Woodcock

Wilby

et al. 2018

Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2015); Suding et al., 2008 and, thereby, for the resilience of associated ecosystem services (Biggs, Schlüter, & Schoon, 2015; Biggs et al., 2012; Díaz et al., 2013). The overlap between effect and response traits may lead to different resilience pathways in the community (Oliver et al., 2015). If there is a positive correlation between effect and response traits, a decline in the populations of species with those traits after a particular environmental perturbation may lead to a decline in the ecological properties fostered by particular effect traits that appear in such populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is important to note that the overlap between effect and response traits is only one of the mechanisms that enhance the resilience of ecosystem services. Many other mechanisms have been identified in the literature, such as genetic variability, species diversity, species populations, landscape heterogeneity, and landscape functional connectivity (Biggs et al., 2015; Nimmo et al., 2015; Oliver et al., 2015). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trait‐based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: Synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges

Hevia

Martín‐López

Palomo

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the responses of biodiversity to drivers of change and the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem properties and ecosystem services is a key challenge in the context of global environmental change. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the scientific literature linking direct drivers of change and ecosystem services via functional traits of three taxonomic groups (vegetation, invertebrates, and vertebrates) to: (1) uncover trends and research biases in this field; and (2) synthesize existing empirical evidence. Our results show the existence of important biases in published studies related to ecosystem types, taxonomic groups, direct drivers of change, ecosystem services, geographical range, and the spatial scale of analysis. We found multiple evidence of links between drivers and services mediated by functional traits, particularly between land‐use changes and regulating services in vegetation and invertebrates. Seventy‐five functional traits were recorded in our sample. However, few of these functional traits were repeatedly found to be associated with both the species responses to direct drivers of change (response traits) and the species effects on the provision of ecosystem services (effect traits). Our results highlight the existence of potential “key functional traits,” understood as those that have the capacity to influence the provision of multiple ecosystem services, while responding to specific drivers of change, across a variety of systems and organisms. Identifying “key functional traits” would help to develop robust indicator systems to monitor changes in biodiversity and their effects on ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services supply.

show abstract

“…Traditionally, B--EF research has certainly adopted a more reductionist (and empirical) approach in contrast to holistic systems thinking of ER. To avoid further confusion, however, reducing ambiguity in the study system context is critical [11]. We propose that many of the apparent discrepancies between the B--EF and ER research fields are simply a result of researchers focusing at different temporal or spatial scales and talking at cross purposes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Synthesis is Emerging between Biodiversity–Ecosystem Function and Ecological Resilience Research: Reply to Mori

Oliver

Heard

Isaac

et al. 2016

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent paper by Mori [1] states the need for a unification of studies of 'engineering' and 'ecological' frameworks of resilience. Engineering resilience focuses on the capacity of a system to recover to equilibrium following some kind of perturbation, whilst ecological resilience explicitly recognizes multiples stable states and the capacity for systems to resist 'regime shifts' between alternate states. We find Mori's argument somewhat surprising given the number of recent biodiversity--ecosystem functioning studies (B--EF) that incorporate aspects of both resistance and recovery [e.g. see references in 2, 3]. We would argue that a synthesis is well underway and that apparent discrepancies are more due to differences in the spatial, temporal and systems scale of focus, and ambiguities in defining this study context, rather than any fundamental incompatibilities in conceptual frameworks.With regards to our recent review on the mechanisms which underpin the resilience of ecosystem functions [3], Mori states: "To avoid confusion, resilience in this case should be explicitly termed as recovery or defined as the analogy of engineering resilience". We clearly consider both recovery and resistance mechanisms that promote the resilience of ecosystem functions. It is unclear what would be the benefit of narrowing the focus to recovery or engineering resilience.Mori appears to feel that although there is some consideration of resistance in recent B--EF research (red text in his Box 1), it does not adequately embrace some of the concepts in the 'ecological resilience' definition, such as the potential for alternative stable states. We clearly define resilience at the level of an individual function, specifically as "the degree to which the ecosystem function can resist or recover rapidly from environmental perturbations, thereby maintaining function above a socially acceptable level" [3]. This definition does not preclude the existence of alternative stable states of the underlying system, and, indeed, we include the potential to shift to alternate states that provide lower function delivery as one of several mechanisms underpinning the provision of resilient ecosystem functions. However, there are many other factors that operate at finer scales of biological organisation, such as the species--level (e.g. genetic variability, sensitivity to environmental change, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, Allee effects) and the community--level (e.g. correlation between response and effect traits, functional redundancy, network interaction structure). Most importantly, we feel that a focus on system state (relative to an assumed equilibrium) is not particularly helpful. The ecological resilience literature is somewhat vague with regards to what aspects of the system should be resistant in the face of an environmental perturbation. The relevant response is varyingly defined as the system 'state', the 'persistence of relationships among state variables within the system', or the 'ways of functioning ' [4]. In our review, we promote ...

show abstract

Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Functions

Abstract: The NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.

Cited by 1,063 publications

References 97 publications

Functional diversity positively affects prey suppression by invertebrate predators: a meta‐analysis

Functional diversity positively affects prey suppression by invertebrate predators: a meta‐analysis

Trait‐based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: Synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges

A Synthesis is Emerging between Biodiversity–Ecosystem Function and Ecological Resilience Research: Reply to Mori

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About