Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity

Abstract

More than 500 controlled experiments have collectively suggested that biodiversity loss reduces ecosystem productivity and stability. Yet the importance of biodiversity in sustaining the world's ecosystems remains controversial, largely because of the lack of validation in nature, where strong abiotic forcing and complex interactions are assumed to swamp biodiversity effects. Here we test this assumption by analysing 133 estimates reported in 67 field studies that statistically separated the effects of biodiversity on biomass production from those of abiotic forcing. Contrary to the prevailing opinion of the previous two decades that biodiversity would have rare or weak effects in nature, we show that biomass production increases with species richness in a wide range of wild taxa and ecosystems. In fact, after controlling for environmental covariates, increases in biomass with biodiversity are stronger in nature than has previously been documented in experiments and comparable to or stronger than the effects of other well-known drivers of productivity, including climate and nutrient availability. These results are consistent with the collective experimental evidence that species richness increases community biomass production, and suggest that the role of biodiversity in maintaining productive ecosystems should figure prominently in global change science and policy.

Biodiversity estimates and ecological interpretations of meiofaunal communities are biased by the taxonomic approach

“…Meanwhile, the role of biodiversity in maintaining ecosystems should be considered prominent in climate change science and policy 2 . Awareness of current extinction rates has led to the establishment of large-scale conservation programs whose effectiveness relies upon the ability to thoroughly and rapidly assess biodiversity and ecosystem health 3 .…”

Untitled

“…O sensoriamento remoto de coberturas vegetais e da atividade fotossintética tem sido utilizado em estudos de sazonalidade de vegetação nativa (HUETE et al, 2006;SILVEIRA et al, 2008;BECERRA et al, 2009), caracterização e identificação de fitofisionomias (LIESENBERG et al, 2007;COUTO JR. et al, 2011), desmatamento (JAMALI et al, 2015) e conservação da biodiversidade (TRACEWSKI et al, 2016), mas é negligenciado em estudos de restauração ecológica (PINHEIRO et al, 2009;BRANCALION et al, 2012;STARR et al, 2013;CORRÊA et al, 2015). Incrementos de biomassa, cobertura vegetal e diversidade são parâmetros associados que são movidos pela fotossíntese durante o processo de sucessão ecológica (GOULDEN et al, 2011;DUFFY et al, 2017). Portanto, a recuperação da capacidade fotossin-tética é processo inerente à restauração de ecossistemas (GOULDEN et al, 2011).…”

Managed Multi-strata Tree + Crop Systems: An Agroecological Marvel

“…Biodiversity is proving to be one of humanity's best defenses against extreme weather and rising temperatures; protecting it is important for keeping the ecosystems working for us, providing food, absorbing waste, and protecting shorelines (Duffy et al, 2017). The inherently high level of biodiversity of multispecies systems offers several possibilities for arrangement of various tree/shrub/and grass components according to the needs and preferences of farmers.…”