No general support for functional diversity enhancing resilience across terrestrial plant communities

IF 6.3 1区环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY

Global Ecology and Biogeography Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1111/geb.13895

Lucrecia Lipoma, Stephan Kambach, Sandra Díaz, Francesco María Sabatini, Gabriella Damasceno, Jens Kattge, Christian Wirth, Scott R. Abella, Carl Beierkuhnlein, Travis R. Belote, Markus Bernhardt-Römermann, Dylan Craven, Jiri Dolezal, Nico Eisenhauer, Forest Isbell, Anke Jentsch, Jürgen Kreyling, Vojtech Lanta, Soizig Le Stradic, Jan Lepš, Outi Manninen, Pierre Mariotte, Peter B. Reich, Jan C. Ruppert, Wolfgang Schmidt, David Tilman, Jasper van Ruijven, Cameron Wagg, David A. Wardle, Brien Wilsey, Helge Bruelheide

{"title":"No general support for functional diversity enhancing resilience across terrestrial plant communities","authors":"Lucrecia Lipoma, Stephan Kambach, Sandra Díaz, Francesco María Sabatini, Gabriella Damasceno, Jens Kattge, Christian Wirth, Scott R. Abella, Carl Beierkuhnlein, Travis R. Belote, Markus Bernhardt-Römermann, Dylan Craven, Jiri Dolezal, Nico Eisenhauer, Forest Isbell, Anke Jentsch, Jürgen Kreyling, Vojtech Lanta, Soizig Le Stradic, Jan Lepš, Outi Manninen, Pierre Mariotte, Peter B. Reich, Jan C. Ruppert, Wolfgang Schmidt, David Tilman, Jasper van Ruijven, Cameron Wagg, David A. Wardle, Brien Wilsey, Helge Bruelheide","doi":"10.1111/geb.13895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Understanding the mechanisms promoting resilience in plant communities is crucial in times of increasing disturbance and global environmental change. Here, we present the first meta-analysis evaluating the relationship between functional diversity and resilience of plant communities. Specifically, we tested whether the resilience of plant communities is positively correlated with interspecific trait variation (following the niche complementarity hypothesis) and the dominance of acquisitive and small-size species (following the mass ratio hypothesis), and for the context-dependent effects of ecological and methodological differences across studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Global.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Time Period</h3>\n \n <p>2004–2021.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Major Taxa Studied</h3>\n \n <p>Vascular plants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We compiled a dataset of 69 independent sites from 26 studies that have quantified resilience. For each site, we calculated functional diversity indices based on the floristic composition and functional traits of the plant community (obtained from the TRY database) which we correlated with resilience of biomass and floristic composition. After transforming correlation coefficients to Fisher's <i>Z</i>-scores, we conducted a hierarchical meta-analysis, using a multilevel random-effects model that accounted for the non-independence of multiple effect sizes and the effects of ecological and methodological moderators.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In general, we found no positive functional diversity–resilience relationships of grand mean effect sizes. In contrast to our expectations, we encountered a negative relationship between resilience and trait variety, especially in woody ecosystems, whereas there was a positive relationship between resilience and the dominance of acquisitive species in herbaceous ecosystems. Finally, the functional diversity–resilience relationships were strongly affected by both ecological (biome and disturbance properties) and methodological (temporal scale, study design and resilience metric) characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We rejected our hypothesis of a general positive functional diversity–resilience relationship. In addition to strong context dependency, we propose that idiosyncratic effects of single resident species present in the communities before the disturbances and biological legacies could play major roles in the resilience of terrestrial plant communities.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":176,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","volume":"33 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geb.13895","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13895","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

Understanding the mechanisms promoting resilience in plant communities is crucial in times of increasing disturbance and global environmental change. Here, we present the first meta-analysis evaluating the relationship between functional diversity and resilience of plant communities. Specifically, we tested whether the resilience of plant communities is positively correlated with interspecific trait variation (following the niche complementarity hypothesis) and the dominance of acquisitive and small-size species (following the mass ratio hypothesis), and for the context-dependent effects of ecological and methodological differences across studies.

Location

Global.

Time Period

2004–2021.

Major Taxa Studied

Vascular plants.

Methods

We compiled a dataset of 69 independent sites from 26 studies that have quantified resilience. For each site, we calculated functional diversity indices based on the floristic composition and functional traits of the plant community (obtained from the TRY database) which we correlated with resilience of biomass and floristic composition. After transforming correlation coefficients to Fisher's Z-scores, we conducted a hierarchical meta-analysis, using a multilevel random-effects model that accounted for the non-independence of multiple effect sizes and the effects of ecological and methodological moderators.

Results

In general, we found no positive functional diversity–resilience relationships of grand mean effect sizes. In contrast to our expectations, we encountered a negative relationship between resilience and trait variety, especially in woody ecosystems, whereas there was a positive relationship between resilience and the dominance of acquisitive species in herbaceous ecosystems. Finally, the functional diversity–resilience relationships were strongly affected by both ecological (biome and disturbance properties) and methodological (temporal scale, study design and resilience metric) characteristics.

Main Conclusions

We rejected our hypothesis of a general positive functional diversity–resilience relationship. In addition to strong context dependency, we propose that idiosyncratic effects of single resident species present in the communities before the disturbances and biological legacies could play major roles in the resilience of terrestrial plant communities.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

普遍不支持功能多样性增强陆生植物群落的恢复力

在干扰和全球环境变化日益加剧的时代，了解促进植物群落恢复力的机制至关重要。在此，我们首次对植物群落的功能多样性与恢复力之间的关系进行了荟萃分析。具体来说，我们检验了植物群落的恢复力是否与种间性状变异（遵循生态位互补假说）、获取性物种和小体型物种的优势（遵循质量比假说）正相关，并检验了不同研究中生态学和方法学差异的背景依赖效应。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Global Ecology and Biogeography 环境科学-生态学

CiteScore

12.10

自引率

3.10%

发文量

170

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) welcomes papers that investigate broad-scale (in space, time and/or taxonomy), general patterns in the organization of ecological systems and assemblages, and the processes that underlie them. In particular, GEB welcomes studies that use macroecological methods, comparative analyses, meta-analyses, reviews, spatial analyses and modelling to arrive at general, conceptual conclusions. Studies in GEB need not be global in spatial extent, but the conclusions and implications of the study must be relevant to ecologists and biogeographers globally, rather than being limited to local areas, or specific taxa. Similarly, GEB is not limited to spatial studies; we are equally interested in the general patterns of nature through time, among taxa (e.g., body sizes, dispersal abilities), through the course of evolution, etc. Further, GEB welcomes papers that investigate general impacts of human activities on ecological systems in accordance with the above criteria.