Conventional functional classification schemes underestimate the relationship with ecosystem functioning.

Studies linking the functional diversity of a biota to ecosystem functioning typically employ a priori classifications of species into hypothetically complementary groups. However, multiple alternate classifications exist in which the number of functional groups, the number of species per functional group, and the grouping of species differ from the a priori scheme. Without assessing the relative precision, or ability of an a priori scheme to accurately predict ecosystem functioning relative to its many alternatives, the validity and utility of analyses based on a single a priori classification scheme remains unclear. We examine the precision of a priori classifications used in 10 experimental grassland systems in Europe and the United States that have found evidence for a significant role of functional plant diversity in governing ecosystem function. The predictive precision of the a priori classifications employed in these studies was seldom significantly higher than the precision of random classifications. Post-hoc classification schemes that performed well in predicting ecosystem function resembled each other more with regard to species composition than average classifications, but there was still considerable variability in the manner in which these classification schemes grouped species. These results suggest that we need a more nuanced understanding of how the diversity of functional traits of species in an assemblage affects ecosystem functioning.

[1]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition , 2002 .

[2]  K. Thompson,et al.  Integrated screening validates primary axes of specialisation in plants , 1997 .

[3]  P. Reich,et al.  Species and functional group diversity independently influence biomass accumulation and its response to CO2 and N. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  S. Naeem,et al.  Disentangling biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: deriving solutions to a seemingly insurmountable problem , 2003 .

[5]  David Mouillot,et al.  Functional regularity: a neglected aspect of functional diversity , 2004, Oecologia.

[6]  Beth A. Middleton,et al.  Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives , 2004 .

[7]  P. Reich,et al.  [Letters to nature] , 1975, Nature.

[8]  F. Woodward,et al.  Ecosystem effects of the manipulation of plant diversity in European grasslands : data from the BIODEPTH project.Ecological Archives M075-001-S1 , 2005 .

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

[10]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail , 2002 .

[11]  G. Daily,et al.  ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems , 2007 .

[12]  David Tilman,et al.  The relationships among root and leaf traits of 76 grassland species and relative abundance along fertility and disturbance gradients , 2001 .

[13]  S. Díaz,et al.  Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes , 2001 .

[14]  F. Chapin,et al.  EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE , 2005 .

[15]  P. Reich,et al.  Functional traits, productivity and effects on nitrogen cycling of 33 grassland species , 2002 .

[16]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects , 1998 .

[17]  P. Vitousek,et al.  Biological Diversity and Terrestrial Ecosystem Biogeochemistry , 1994 .

[18]  Pereira,et al.  Plant diversity and productivity experiments in european grasslands , 1999, Science.

[19]  A. Magurran.  Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[20]  Peter B Reich,et al.  Variation in growth rate and ecophysiology among 34 grassland and savanna species under contrasting N supply: a test of functional group differences. , 2003, The New phytologist.

[21]  D. Wilcove,et al.  QUANTIFYING THREATS TO IMPERILED SPECIES IN THE UNITED STATES , 1998 .

[22]  J. P. Grime,et al.  The plant traits that drive ecosystems: Evidence from three continents , 2004 .

[23]  N. Gotelli,et al.  NULL MODELS IN ECOLOGY , 1996 .

[24]  S. Naeem,et al.  Plant neighborhood diversity and production , 1999 .

[25]  W. Stanley Harpole,et al.  Mechanisms responsible for the positive diversity–productivity relationship in Minnesota grasslands , 2004 .

[26]  D. Hooper,et al.  Overyielding among plant functional groups in a long‐term experiment , 2003 .

[27]  David Tilman,et al.  COMMUNITY INVASIBILITY, RECRUITMENT LIMITATION, AND GRASSLAND BIODIVERSITY , 1997 .

[28]  P. Reich,et al.  The Influence of Functional Diversity and Composition on Ecosystem Processes , 1997 .

[29]  O. Petchey.  On the statistical significance of functional diversity effects , 2004 .

[30]  E. Schulze,et al.  The role of biodiversity for element cycling and trophic interactions: an experimental approach in a grassland community , 2004 .

[31]  F. Woodward,et al.  ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY MANIPULATIONS IN EUROPEAN GRASSLANDS , 2005 .

[32]  A. Symstad.  A test of the effects of functional group richness and composition on grassland invasibility. , 2000 .

[33]  Sean C. Thomas,et al.  The worldwide leaf economics spectrum , 2004, Nature.

[34]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges , 2001, Science.

[35]  A. Kinzig,et al.  Original Articles: Plant Attribute Diversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Function: The Nature and Significance of Dominant and Minor Species , 1999, Ecosystems.