Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis.

Although the effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning has become a major focus in ecology, its significance in a fluctuating environment is still poorly understood. According to the insurance hypothesis, biodiversity insures ecosystems against declines in their functioning because many species provide greater guarantees that some will maintain functioning even if others fail. Here we examine this hypothesis theoretically. We develop a general stochastic dynamic model to assess the effects of species richness on the expected temporal mean and variance of ecosystem processes such as productivity, based on individual species' productivity responses to environmental fluctuations. Our model shows two major insurance effects of species richness on ecosystem productivity: (i) a buffering effect, i.e., a reduction in the temporal variance of productivity, and (ii) a performance-enhancing effect, i.e., an increase in the temporal mean of productivity. The strength of these insurance effects is determined by three factors: (i) the way ecosystem productivity is determined by individual species responses to environmental fluctuations, (ii) the degree of asynchronicity of these responses, and (iii) the detailed form of these responses. In particular, the greater the variance of the species responses, the lower the species richness at which the temporal mean of the ecosystem process saturates and the ecosystem becomes redundant. These results provide a strong theoretical foundation for the insurance hypothesis, which proves to be a fundamental principle for understanding the long-term effects of biodiversity on ecosystem processes.

[1]  F. Chapin,et al.  Biotic Control over the Functioning of Ecosystems , 1997 .

[2]  M. Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: a mechanistic model. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  Shahid Naeem,et al.  Species Redundancy and Ecosystem Reliability , 1998 .

[4]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy , 1991, Science.

[5]  P. Vitousek,et al.  The Effects of Plant Composition and Diversity on Ecosystem Processes , 1997 .

[6]  D. Doak,et al.  The Statistical Inevitability of Stability‐Diversity Relationships in Community Ecology , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[7]  B. Trenbath,et al.  Biomass Productivity of Mixtures , 1974 .

[8]  D. Tilman,et al.  Diversity‐Stability Relationships: Statistical Inevitability or Ecological Consequence? , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[9]  D. Tilman Distinguishing between the effects of species diversity and species composition , 1997 .

[10]  O. Schmitz,et al.  Biodiversity and the productivity and stability of ecosystems. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[11]  S. McNaughton Diversity and Stability of Ecological Communities: A Comment on the Role of Empiricism in Ecology , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[12]  L. Oksanen,et al.  Exploitation Ecosystems in Gradients of Primary Productivity , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[13]  William G. Lee,et al.  Species redundancy: a redundant concept? , 1996 .

[14]  D. Tilman,et al.  Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  H. Mooney,et al.  Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems , 1997, Renewable Energy.

[16]  D. Tilman Biodiversity: Population Versus Ecosystem Stability , 1995 .

[17]  B. Walker Biodiversity and Ecological Redundancy , 1992 .