Heterogeneous microcommunities and ecosystem multifunctionality in seminatural grasslands under three management modes

Abstract

Increasing attention has been paid to the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF) because of the rapid increase in species loss. However, over the past 20 years, most BEF studies only focused on the effect of species diversity on one or a few ecosystem functions, and only a few studies focused on ecosystem multifunctionality (i.e., the simultaneous provision of several ecosystem functions). Grassland ecosystems have important economic, environmental, and esthetic value; thus, this study focused on the heterogeneous microcommunities in grasslands under three management modes. The multifunctionality index (M‐index) was assessed at community and microcommunity scales, and the relationship between species diversity and multifunctionality was investigated. The communities were found to be respectively composed of one, three, and six microcommunities in grazing, clipping, and enclosure management, based on a two‐way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN) and detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) for community structure. Biodiversity and soil indicators showed an apparent degradation of the grazing community, which had the worst M‐index. Clipping and enclosure communities showed no significant difference in biodiversity indices, soil variables, and M‐index; however, these indices were clearly different among microcommunities. Therefore, the microcommunity scale may be suitable to investigate the relationship between vegetation and multifunctionality in seminatural grassland ecosystems. Dominant species richness had more explanatory power for ecosystem multifunctionality than subdominant species richness, rare species richness, and the number of all species. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the role and rank of different species in the species richness–multifunctionality model; otherwise, the model might include redundant and unclear information. Communities with more codominant species whose distribution is also even might have better multifunctionality.

A niche for ecosystem multifunctionality in global change research

“…A current lack of a strong link between ecosystem functions and services exists, likely because this is highly challenging and requires well‐defined stakeholder objectives (Manning et al, ; Box 1). Notable exceptions were studies that considered the ecosystem services that stakeholders are particularly interested in receiving from a given landscape (Allan et al, ) or that took a landscape perspective (Alsterberg et al, ; Li, Zheng, Xie, Zhao, & Gao, ) to better understand how landscape structure can mediate the effects of global change on EMF. While the relevance of some commonly measured material pools and fluxes were easily linked to ecosystem services of interest to stakeholders (e.g., productivity measures), the relevance of many functions or state variables were frequently unaddressed, which strongly limits the ability of some GC‐EMF research to make practical recommendations for stakeholders.…”

Historical and recent land use affects ecosystem functions in subtropical grasslands in Brazil

“…, Li et al. ). Studying several ecosystem functions is necessary because individual ecosystem functions can differ and even contrast in their responses to changes in biodiversity (Allan et al.…”

“…, Li et al. ), where effect sizes might expectedly be smaller than when assessing consequences of land conversion. As in biodiversity research, many studies on land‐use effects have focused on single ecosystem functions (often on indicators of productivity) with fewer studies investigating multiple functions (e.g., Smukler et al.…”

“…Many studies on land use focus on the effects of habitat conversion from natural ecosystems to anthropogenic landscapes like conversion of forests and grasslands to agricultural land or tree plantations (e.g., Dislich et al 2017), analyze elements within anthropogenic landscapes (e.g., Smukler et al 2010), or investigate effects of farming practices (e.g., Geiger et al 2010). Fewer studies compare ecosystem functions among different levels of management intensity (e.g., Werling et al 2014, Allan et al 2015, Li et al 2017, where effect sizes might expectedly be smaller than when assessing consequences of land conversion. As in biodiversity research, many studies on land-use effects have focused on single ecosystem functions (often on indicators of productivity) with fewer studies investigating multiple functions (e.g., Smukler et al 2010, Allan et al 2015, Li et al 2017.…”

“…Fewer studies compare ecosystem functions among different levels of management intensity (e.g., Werling et al 2014, Allan et al 2015, Li et al 2017, where effect sizes might expectedly be smaller than when assessing consequences of land conversion. As in biodiversity research, many studies on land-use effects have focused on single ecosystem functions (often on indicators of productivity) with fewer studies investigating multiple functions (e.g., Smukler et al 2010, Allan et al 2015, Li et al 2017. Studying several ecosystem functions is necessary because individual ecosystem functions can differ and even contrast in their responses to changes in biodiversity (Allan et al 2013) and land use (Allan et al 2015).…”