The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests

By A. Paquette, Christian Messier. 2011

894 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4fd221a31e3a37e9d02b84e9aa48d28f153c084a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Does functional trait diversity predict above‐ground biomass and productivity of tropical forests? Testing three alternative hypotheses (2015, background): “FV may be positively correlated with both standing biomass and biomass productivity in woody vegetation (Paquette & Messier 2011; Conti & D ıaz 2013).”
Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta‐analysis (2012, result): “In contrast to previous findings (Paquette & Messier 2011), our results show that the complementarity effects are similar across biomes.”
Tropical tree diversity enhances light capture through crown plasticity and spatial and temporal niche differences (2014, background): “…of tree diversity on forest productivity, but they failed to identify the mechanisms that underlie these effects and that could guide the management of forests and plantations in the face of global changes (Paquette and Messier 2011, Zhang et al. 2012, Gamfeldt et al. 2013, Vilà et al. 2013).”
Species richness, but not phylogenetic diversity, influences community biomass production and temporal stability in a re-examination of 16 grassland biodiversity studies (2015, background): “…instances where phylogenetic diversity was positively 129 related to ecosystem functioning, it tended to explain only a small fraction more of the 130 variation than species richness (Cadotte et al. 2008, Cadotte et al. 2009, Cadotte 2013, but 131 see Paquette & Messier 2011, Cadotte et al. 2012).”
Functional diversity changes during tropical forest succession (2012, background): “Possibly functional redundancy starts to play an imporant role at later stages of succession (Laliberté et al., 2010; aquette and Messier, 2011), or on the contrary limiting simiarity causes functional diversity to increase disproportionally to llow species to co-exist (Holdaway and Sparrow, 2006; C”
Is Tree Species Diversity or Species Identity the More Important Driver of Soil Carbon Stocks, C/N Ratio, and pH? (2016, background): “Positive effects of tree species diversity were documented for productivity and aboveground C stocks (Paquette and Messier 2011; Jucker and others 2014).”
A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change (2012, neutral): “However, it is uncertain how the sizes of these effects compare with the direct effects of other types of environmental change, such as changing atmospheric composition, climate warming and nutrient pollution, that also threaten ecosystem functioning 13–15 .”
Carbon storage in tropical forests correlates with taxonomic diversity and functional dominance on a global scale (2014, methodology): “Finally, while our 1-ha size plots are large relative to many other empirical forest B-EF studies (e.g. Vilà et al., 2007; Paquette & Messier, 2011; Ruiz-Jaen & Potvin, 2011), there is still fine-scale variation in forest biomass that could add uncertainty to our empirical relationships between…”
Biodiversity and climate determine the functioning of neotropical forests. (2017, background): “Functional tree diversity increased productivity in climatically harsh boreal forest, but had a weaker effect in climatically more benign temperate forests (Paquette & Messier, 2011), and tree diversity increased biomass growth for four out of 11 European forest types (Vil a et al., 2013).”
Diversity and competition influence tree allometric relationships – developing functions for mixed‐species forests (2017, background): “However, mixed-species forests are increasingly recognized for their potentially superior productivity (e.g., average of 24%; Paquette & Messier 2011; Zhang, Chen & Reich 2012; Forrester & Bauhus 2016), their multifunctionality benefits (Gamfeldt et al. 2013) and their ecological and aesthetic…”
Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest‐associated taxa in Europe (2020, background): “For example, previous research indicated that increasing tree diversity increases tree productivity (Paquette and Messier 2011), soil carbon storage (Ruiz-Benito et al.”
Changing drivers of species dominance during tropical forest succession (2014, neutral): “…increases with fallow age (R2 = 0 70, P < 0 001), it is a good descriptor of aboveground biomass, and it correlates closely with light interception and changes in environmental conditions (Lebrija-Trejos et al. 2011) and may reflect competitive interactions (Paquette & Messier 2011).”
Multiple factors modulate tree growth complementarity in Central European mixed forests (2018, background): “Previous studies have demonstrated that higher tree species richness can lead to higher productivity (Liang et al., 2016; Paquette & Messier, 2011; Vilà et al., 2013) and that mixed stands can deliver higher level of ecosystem services and functioning than monocultures (Gamfeldt et al., 2013;…”
Competition for light and water play contrasting roles in driving diversity–productivity relationships in Iberian forests (2014, background): “Numerous studies have reported positive effects of diversity on AWP in forests (Piotto 2008; Paquette & Messier 2011; Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Vil a et al. 2013), including in Mediterranean systems (Vil a et al. 2007; Ruiz-Benito et al. 2014).”
The relationship between tree species richness, canopy space exploration and productivity in a temperate broad-leaf mixed forest (2013, background): “Boreal, temperate, and tropical forests have displayed positive species richness – productivity relationships (e.g. Vilà et al., 2007, 2013; Paquette and Messier, 2011; Gamfeldt et al., 2013), no dependence or even negative relationships (Jacob et al.”
Increasing stand structural heterogeneity reduces productivity in Brazilian Eucalyptus monoclonal stands (2016, background): “…species diversity associated with structural heterogeneity sometimes has a positive effect on productivity (Lei et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2011; Paquette and Messier, 2011; Vilà et al., 2013; Zhang and Chen, 2015), whereas in this study, where genetic diversity was reduced to zero, structural…”
Functional diversity enhances silver fir growth resilience to an extreme drought (2016, background): “…evidence suggests that biodiversity influences terrestrial ecosystem processes, such as biomass production (Vil a et al. 2007; Morin et al. 2011; Paquette & Messier 2011; Grossiord et al. 2014a; Ruiz-Benito et al. 2014), carbon storage (Grossiord et al. 2013; RuizBenito et al. 2014) and…”
Drought responses by individual tree species are not often correlated with tree species diversity in European forests (2016, positive): “Many studies have shown that mixed-species forests can be more productive than monocultures (Paquette & Messier 2011; Zhang, Chen & Reich 2012; Forrester & Bauhus 2016) and some have also shown that they can be more resistant and resilient to climate extremes (Lebourgeois et al. 2013; Pretzsch,…”