Diversity of plant evolutionary lineages promotes arthropod diversity

Dinnage, Russell; Cadotte, Marc W.; Haddad, Nick M.; Crutsinger, Gregory M.; Tilman, David

doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01854.x

Cited by 113 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, we show that bottom-up effects of MPD can prevail to, and influence interactions in, high trophic levels, which has until now only been shown for structurally simple experimental ecosystems (e.g. [26,47]) but not for heterogeneous and species-rich natural forests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…food for hosts, hosts of parasitoids; see below) and shelter [4]. While for systems with phytophagous hosts, plant MPD directly relates to food availability and diversity [21,26], it is less intuitive how MPD might influence systems with hosts from higher trophic levels. Host-parasitoid interactions in tropical forests are sensitive to microclimate [48], but the cause is unknown.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, the full GLMMs were fitted with the fixed effects aspect eastness, aspect northness, herb layer cover, elevation, leaf functional diversity, MPD, shrub layer cover, successional age, and tree species richness. The interaction term between tree species richness and MPD was included to account for the possible interdependence between the two measures of diversity [26], which were weakly positively correlated (r s ¼ 0.47; electronic supplementary material, table S2 and figure S1). Host brood cell number (log-transformed) was included as a fixed effect in all models for parasitoid abundance, parasitoid richness, and parasitism rate to account for possible dependencies between host population density and parasitoids [37].…”

Section: (D) Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tree phylogenetic diversity promotes host–parasitoid interactions

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence from grassland experiments suggests that a plant community's phylogenetic diversity (PD) is a strong predictor of ecosystem processes, even stronger than species richness per se. This has, however, never been extended to species-rich forests and host-parasitoid interactions. We used cavitynesting Hymenoptera and their parasitoids collected in a subtropical forest as a model system to test whether hosts, parasitoids, and their interactions are influenced by tree PD and a comprehensive set of environmental variables, including tree species richness. Parasitism rate and parasitoid abundance were positively correlated with tree PD. All variables describing parasitoids decreased with elevation, and were, except parasitism rate, dependent on host abundance. Quantitative descriptors of host-parasitoid networks were independent of the environment. Our study indicates that host-parasitoid interactions in species-rich forests are related to the PD of the tree community, which influences parasitism rates through parasitoid abundance. We show that effects of tree community PD are much stronger than effects of tree species richness, can cascade to high trophic levels, and promote trophic interactions. As during habitat modification phylogenetic information is usually lost nonrandomly, even species-rich habitats may not be able to continuously provide the ecosystem process parasitism if the evolutionarily most distinct plant lineages vanish.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (D) Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tree phylogenetic diversity promotes host–parasitoid interactions

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, recent studies have manipulated plant species phylogenetic diversity [29,30], and a metaanalysis by Castagneyrol et al [31 ] reported that mixing closely related tree species increased the susceptibility of focal species to damage by generalist insect herbivores (see also [32] for phylogenetic diversity effects on plant performance). However, it is important to note that effects of phylogenetic diversity would be expected only when there is a strong phylogenetic signal in plant traits, and this is not always the case.…”

Section: The Predictive Role Of Producer and Consumer Traits Plant Trmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant diversity effects on insect herbivores and their natural enemies: current thinking, recent findings, and future directions

Moreira

Abdala‐Roberts

Rasmann

et al. 2016

Current Opinion in Insect Science

162

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rich body of theory has been developed to predict the effects of plant diversity on communities at higher trophic levels and the mechanisms underpinning such effects. However, there are currently a number of key gaps in knowledge that have hindered the development of a predictive framework of plant diversity effects on consumers. For instance, we still know very little about how the magnitude of plant trait variation (e.g. intraspecific vs. inter-specific), as well as the identity and combined effects of plant, herbivore and natural enemy traits, mediate plant diversity effects on consumers. Moreover, the fine-scale mechanisms (e.g. changes in consumer behaviour or recruitment responses) underlying such diversity effects in many cases remain elusive or have been overlooked. In addition, most studies of plant diversity effects on associated consumers have been developed under a static, unidirectional (bottom-up) framework of effects on herbivores and predators without taking into account the potential for dynamic feedbacks across trophic levels. Here we seek to address these key gaps in knowledge as well as to capitalize on recent advances and emerging frameworks in plant biodiversity research. In doing so, we provide new insights as well as recommendations which will stimulate new research and advance this field of study. IntroductionThe consequences of plant intra-specific and inter-specific diversity on associated faunas have been the focus of much research over the last decade (e.g. [1 ,2-8,9 ]). Studies have found that plant diversity positively influences arthropod diversity and abundance [3,4,8,10], and alters plant-arthropod and arthropod-arthropod interactions [3,7,11,12]. These findings emphasize that conserving and manipulating plant diversity in natural and managed systems, respectively, is crucial for maintaining ecosystem function [13][14][15].A rich body of theory has been developed to predict the effects of plant diversity on communities at higher trophic levels ([16-22], see Box 1). Despite this vast collection of theory behind plant diversity effects on associated faunas and the large number of empirical studies conducted thus far, formal evaluations of the mechanisms behind the observed patterns have been developed in natural communities (but see [20] for e.g. in agricultural systems). In addition, there are also a number of key gaps in knowledge that have hindered the development of a predictive framework of plant diversity effects on higher trophic levels ( Figure 1). For example, we generally ignore how the magnitude of variation in plant traits (e.g. interspecific vs. intra-specific diversity) or the identity (including independent and interactive effects of multiple traits) of plant traits determines such effects. Similarly, many studies have lacked an explicit evaluation of the influence of herbivore traits such as diet breadth, mobility and feeding behaviour, and the underlying mechanisms for diversity effects on consumer abundance or behaviour remain elusive (e.g. effects of diversit...

show abstract

“…However, the simple assumption that the more time that has passed since two species shared a common ancestor, the higher the probability they have ecologically diverged appears to provide a powerful explanation for how biodiversity affects ecosystem function (15,(18)(19)(20). Previous analyses of the relationship between plant evolutionary history and biomass production used existing experiments that manipulated species richness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental evidence that evolutionarily diverse assemblages result in higher productivity

Cadotte

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

228

268

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There now is ample experimental evidence that speciose assemblages are more productive and provide a greater amount of ecosystem services than depauperate ones. However, these experiments often conclude that there is a higher probability of including complementary species combinations in assemblages with more species and lack a priori prediction about which species combinations maximize function. Here, I report the results of an experiment manipulating the evolutionary relatedness of constituent plant species across a richness gradient. I show that assemblages with distantly related species contributed most to the higher biomass production in multispecies assemblages, through species complementarity. Species produced more biomass than predicted from their monocultures when they were in plots with distantly related species and produced the amount of biomass predicted from monoculture when sown with close relatives. This finding suggests that in the absence of any other information, combining distantly related species in restored or managed landscapes may serve to maximize biomass production and carbon sequestration, thus merging calls to conserve evolutionary history and maximize ecosystem function.biodiversity | phylogenetic diversity | transgressive overyielding E vidence showing that ecosystem function is positively related to the number of species in an assemblage (1-7) has profoundly changed how scientists and policy makers view the potential impact of species extinction (8, 9). However, not all species contribute equally to emergent functioning of an assemblage. How much species uniquely contribute to ecosystem functioning depends on several different aspects of species ecologies, including how variable their population dynamics are (10-12) and how susceptible they are to local extinction (13), as well as how much they overlap in their resource requirements (14, 15) and the relative distinctiveness of species in multivariate functional trait space (16,17).Measuring the meaningful differences in species' ecologies, across large numbers of species, has proven difficult. However, the simple assumption that the more time that has passed since two species shared a common ancestor, the higher the probability they have ecologically diverged appears to provide a powerful explanation for how biodiversity affects ecosystem function (15,(18)(19)(20). Previous analyses of the relationship between plant evolutionary history and biomass production used existing experiments that manipulated species richness. These experiments often were biased toward distantly related species, as experimenters chose to include representatives of disparate lineages (e.g., a grass or a nitrogen fixer); thus, the observed relationship between evolutionary history and productivity may have been driven by the relatively few close relatives used in these experiments (19).Further, previous analyses of the relationship between phylogenetic diversity (PD) and ecosystem function relied on the untested assumption that distantly related species are m...

show abstract

Diversity of plant evolutionary lineages promotes arthropod diversity

Cited by 113 publications

References 52 publications

Tree phylogenetic diversity promotes host–parasitoid interactions

Tree phylogenetic diversity promotes host–parasitoid interactions

Plant diversity effects on insect herbivores and their natural enemies: current thinking, recent findings, and future directions

Experimental evidence that evolutionarily diverse assemblages result in higher productivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About