Functional identity is more important than diversity in influencing ecosystem processes in a temperate native grassland

1 Experimental studies have provided significant knowledge of how biodiversity can influence ecosystem processes. However, there is a growing need to relate these findings to natural communities. 2 Here we identify two major hypotheses for how communities may influence ecosystem processes: the ‘diversity hypothesis’ (the diversity of organisms in a community influences ecosystem processes through mechanisms such as complementary resource use), and the ‘mass ratio hypothesis’ (ecosystem processes are determined overwhelmingly by the functional traits of the dominant species). We then test which of these two hypotheses best explain variation in ecosystem properties and processes (biomass pools and fluxes, water use, light interception) in a temperate native grassland. We do this by applying various measures of diversity, functional diversity, and functional identity, whose significant relations with ecosystem processes would support either of the competing hypotheses. 3 Mean trait values best explained variation in five of the eight ecosystem processes examined, supporting Grime's mass ratio hypothesis, which proposes that the functional identities of the dominant species largely determine ecosystem processes. 4 Multi‐trait functional diversity indices also explained large amounts of variation in ecosystem processes, while only weak relationships were observed between species richness and ecosystem processes. 5 To explore the mechanistic interactions between variables, we developed structural equation models (SEMs), which indicated that many of the community diversity and trait properties significantly influenced ecosystem processes, even after accounting for co‐varying biotic/abiotic factors. 6 Synthesis. Our study is one of the first explicit comparisons of the ‘diversity’ and ‘mass ratio’ hypotheses, and our results most strongly support the mass ratio hypothesis, that is, the traits of the dominant species most influenced the ecosystem properties and processes examined. Our results suggest that the management of communities for the maintenance of ecosystem processes should focus on species dominance hierarchies.

[1]  K. Mokany,et al.  Are traits measured on pot grown plants representative of those in natural communities , 2008 .

[2]  James B Grace,et al.  Does species diversity limit productivity in natural grassland communities? , 2007, Ecology letters.

[3]  Jordi Vayreda,et al.  Species richness and wood production: a positive association in Mediterranean forests. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[4]  J. Bruno,et al.  Partitioning the effects of algal species identity and richness on benthic marine primary production , 2006 .

[5]  P. Balvanera,et al.  Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[6]  Eric Garnier,et al.  Ecosystem productivity can be predicted from potential relative growth rate and species abundance. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[7]  Owen L. Petchey,et al.  Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[8]  B. Wilsey,et al.  Early-successional plants regulate grassland productivity and species composition: a removal experiment , 2006 .

[9]  Mark Westoby,et al.  Land-plant ecology on the basis of functional traits. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  Clarence Lehman,et al.  Conventional functional classification schemes underestimate the relationship with ecosystem functioning. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[11]  Jan Lepš,et al.  Quantifying and interpreting functional diversity of natural communities: practical considerations matter , 2006 .

[12]  C. Ricotta.  A note on functional diversity measures , 2005 .

[13]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  Rao's quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits , 2005 .

[14]  William G. Lee,et al.  Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity , 2005 .

[15]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Biodiversity, ecosystem function and plant traits in mature and immature plant communities , 2005 .

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

[17]  Nina Buchmann,et al.  Effects of plant diversity, community composition and environmental parameters on productivity in montane European grasslands , 2005, Oecologia.

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

[19]  Eric Garnier,et al.  PLANT FUNCTIONAL MARKERS CAPTURE ECOSYSTEM PROPERTIES DURING SECONDARY SUCCESSION , 2004 .

[20]  J. Bastow Wilson,et al.  Evidence for limiting similarity in a sand dune community , 2004 .

[21]  M. Vilà,et al.  Biodiversity correlates with regional patterns of forest litter pools , 2004, Oecologia.

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

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

[24]  S. Gaines,et al.  Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases , 2003 .

[25]  P. Reich,et al.  A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide , 2003 .

[26]  M. Vilà,et al.  Does tree diversity increase wood production in pine forests? , 2003, Oecologia.

[27]  M. Moran.  Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies , 2003 .

[28]  Kit Macgillivray,et al.  An index of functional diversity , 2003 .

[29]  DEBRA P. C. PETERS,et al.  Long-Term and Large-Scale Perspectives on the Relationship between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning , 2003 .

[30]  Dylan Keon,et al.  Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load , 2002 .

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

[32]  Mathew A. Leibold,et al.  Ecosystem consequences of species richness and composition in pond food webs , 2002, Nature.

[33]  B. Schmid.  The species richness–productivity controversy , 2002 .

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

[35]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances , 2000 .

[36]  J. Podani.  Extending Gower's general coefficient of similarity to ordinal characters , 1999 .

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

[38]  Ian R. Sanders,et al.  Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity , 1998, Nature.

[39]  J. Bengtsson.  Which species? What kind of diversity? Which ecosystem function? Some problems in studies of relations between biodiversity and ecosystem function , 1998 .

[40]  D. Hooper.  THE ROLE OF COMPLEMENTARITY AND COMPETITION IN ECOSYSTEM RESPONSES TO VARIATION IN PLANT DIVERSITY , 1998 .

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

[42]  L. Aarssen.  High productivity in grassland ecosystems : effected by species diversity or productive species ? , 1997 .

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

[44]  Michael A. Huston,et al.  Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity , 1997, Oecologia.

[45]  D. F. Grigal,et al.  Vertical root distributions of northern tree species in relation to successional status , 1987 .

[46]  J. Gower.  A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties , 1971 .