Functional diversity revealed by removal experiments

By Sandra Díaz, A. Symstad, F. Stuart, Chapín Iii, David A. Wardle, L. Huenneke. 2003

438 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The dominant protocol to study the effects of plant diversity on ecosystem functioning has involved synthetically assembled communities, in which the experimental design determines species composition. By contrast, the composition of naturally assembled communities is determined by environmental filters, species recruitment and dispersal, and other assembly processes. Consequently, natural communities and ecosystems can differ from synthetic systems in their reaction to changes in diversity. Removal experiments, in which the diversity of naturally assembled communities is manipulated by removing various components, complement synthetic-assemblage experiments in exploring the relationship between diversity and ecosystem functioning. Results of recent removal experiments suggest that they are more useful for understanding the ecosystem effects of local, nonrandom extinctions, changes in the natural abundance of species, and complex interspecific interactions. This makes removal experiments a promising avenue for progress in ecological theory and an important source of information for those involved in making land-use and conservation decisions. Current extinction rates caused by human activities are orders of magnitude higher than natural background levels [1], and it is crucial that we understand the functional consequences of such extinctions. Terrestrial plants provide the basis for many fundamental ecosystem processes and services; therefore, many initiatives have been launched in the past decade to address this issue by documenting the possible effects of terrestrial plant diversity on ecosystem processes. Most of these studies are based on experiments using synthetic communities, in

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10d702c127371f5fd9ce49274429101a98489d71

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Response of endophytic fungi of Stipa grandis to experimental plant function group removal in Inner Mongolia steppe, China (2010, background): “The plant functional groups are important in ecosystem functioning (Díaz et al. 2003; Bai et al. 2004), and are the main drivers of carbon, nutrient and water cycling in the ecosystem (Urcelay et al.”
Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? (2005, background): “…contrast, studies of biodiversity–function often examine communities whose structures differ markedly from those providing services in real landscapes (Diaz et al. 2003; Symstad et al. 2003; Larsen et al. 2005), and have been restricted to a small set of ecosystem processes (Schwartz et al. 2000).”
Loss in microbial diversity affects nitrogen cycling in soil (2013, methodology): “Microbial diversity was manipulated through a removal experiment (Diaz et al., 2003) by inoculating sterile soil microcosms with serial dilutions of a soil microbial suspension.”
A synthesis of subdisciplines: predator–prey interactions, and biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (2004, background): “For example, removal experiments have advantages over designs based upon assembling communities because removals can be performed at relatively large spatial scales and start with communities that represent natural assemblages of species (Diaz et al. 2003).”
Variability in population and community biomass in a grassland community affected by environmental productivity and diversity (2004, background): “This is not a general feature of all removal experiments / in general, the removal can result in wide range of response types of the rest of the community (Allen and Forman 1976, Abul-Fatih and Bazzaz 1979, Hils and Vankat 1982, Dı́az et al. 2003).”
The functional consequences of random vs. ordered species extinctions (2005, background): “…processes like primary production, nutrient cycling, decomposition, rates of predation, etc. (for example, Hooper & Vitousek 1997; Symstad et al. 1998; Hector et al. 1999; Naeem et al. 2000; Mulder et al. 2001; Tilman et al. 2001; Cardinale et al. 2002, 2003; Duffy et al. 2003; Loreau et al. 2003).”
Assessing the impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats: partitioning diversity components following species removal (2005, methodology): “Removal experiments provide a useful tool in the assessment of invasive species’ impacts but may not entirely reflect the effect of species’ introductions (Diaz et al. 2003).”
Plant communities as drivers of soil respiration: pathways, mechanisms, and significance for global change (2011, background): “For this reason, experimental428 removal of key species or functional groups from natural systems may provide a better picture of429 how ecosystem processes, such as R, may be influenced by nonrandom species losses from plant430 communities (Diaz et al., 2003).”
Freshwater food webs: towards a more fundamental understanding of biodiversity and community dynamics (2012, background): “The majority of studies in this area have concentrated on a single trophic level (e.g. Diaz et al., 2003, see Hooper et al., 2005 for a review).”
Plant functional diversity and carbon storage – an empirical test in semi‐arid forest ecosystems (2013, background): “…groups from initially homogeneous communities in the field, both herbaceous (Symstad & Tilman 2001; Polley et al. 2006; McLaren & Turkington 2010; Joner et al. 2011) and woody (Aguiar & Sala 1994; Díaz et al. 2003; Bret-Harte et al. 2008; Wardle, Lagerström & Nilsson 2008; Urcelay et al. 2009).”
BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN NUMBER AND IDENTITY OF SPECIES (2005, background): “Recently, there have been calls for experiments specifically investigating the loss of species by their removal from a natural system, preferably in situ (Biles et al. 2003, Diaz et al. 2003).”