Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment

By C. Scherber, N. Eisenhauer, W. Weisser, Barbara C. Schmid, Winfried Voigt, M. Fischer, E. Schulze, C. Roscher, A. Weigelt, E. Allan and 30 more. Nature, 2010

1,012 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Biodiversity is rapidly declining, and this may negatively affect ecosystem processes, including economically important ecosystem services. Previous studies have shown that biodiversity has positive effects on organisms and processes across trophic levels. However, only a few studies have so far incorporated an explicit food-web perspective. In an eight-year biodiversity experiment, we studied an unprecedented range of above- and below-ground organisms and multitrophic interactions. A multitrophic data set originating from a single long-term experiment allows mechanistic insights that would not be gained from meta-analysis of different experiments. Here we show that plant diversity effects dampen with increasing trophic level and degree of omnivory. This was true both for abundance and species richness of organisms. Furthermore, we present comprehensive above-ground/below-ground biodiversity food webs. Both above ground and below ground, herbivores responded more strongly to changes in plant diversity than did carnivores or omnivores. Density and richness of carnivorous taxa was independent of vegetation structure. Below-ground responses to plant diversity were consistently weaker than above-ground responses. Responses to increasing plant diversity were generally positive, but were negative for biological invasion, pathogen infestation and hyperparasitism. Our results suggest that plant diversity has strong bottom-up effects on multitrophic interaction networks, with particularly strong effects on lower trophic levels. Effects on higher trophic levels are indirectly mediated through bottom-up trophic cascades.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5823d352ded17bce618b9a7bac33b3bd4d82cb22

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. Petr Pyšek
2. Jan Pergl
3. M. Vilà
4. P. Hulme
5. V. Jarošı́k
6. M. Scherer‐Lorenzen
7. Peter B. Reich
8. Urs Schaffner

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Petr Pyšek
2. M. Vilà
3. Peter B. Reich
4. D. Richardson
5. Jan Pergl
6. V. Jarošı́k
7. P. Hulme
8. M. Scherer‐Lorenzen

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. M. Vilà
4. Peter B. Reich
5. Jan Pergl
6. V. Jarošı́k
7. P. Hulme
8. M. Scherer‐Lorenzen

Citations in the corpus

• The Robustness and Restoration of a Network of Ecological Networks (2012, methodology): “In simulating the loss of plants, we used an established method 81 (12, 17), and assumed bottom-up rather than top-down regulation of the animals, as justified 82 by (18).”
• Deadwood enrichment in European forests – Which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity? (2016, positive): “Suchsaturatingrela-tionships between plant diversity and the species richness of various animal consumer groups (e.g. herbivores or predators) have also been found in experiments manipulating plant species richness in grasslands (up to 64 plant species, see Scherber et al., 2010).”
• Urban Grassland Restoration: A Neglected Opportunity for Biodiversity Conservation (2013, background): “Further studies highlighted beneficial effects of plant species richness on faunal diversity (Scherber et al. 2010).”
• Cover Crop Biomass Production Is More Important than Diversity for Weed Suppression (2019, background): “…known to be associated with increased provision of several specific ecosystem functions (Isbell et al., 2017), including productivity (Tilman et al., 2012), soil C storage (Lange et al., 2015), nutrient cycling (Oelmann et al., 2011), and the support of further biodiversity (Scherber et al., 2010).”
• Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition (2015, neutral): “4, also see Socher et al. 2012).”
• Losers, winners, and opportunists: How grassland land‐use intensity affects orthopteran communities (2016, background): “Insect species diversity (Haddad et al. 2000), especially of herbivorous insects including orthopterans (Scherber et al. 2010), is positively related to plant species richness in experimental grassland systems, and naturally assembled grasslands (Simons et al. 2014).”
• Direct and indirect effects of invasive species: Biodiversity loss is a major mechanism by which an invasive tree affects ecosystem functioning (2019, background): “Herbivorous and predatory invertebrates were analysed in one SEM to test for possible cascading effects (Scherber et al., 2010).”
• A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species' traits and environment (2012, background): “The pattern on mainland was, again, context dependent; animal species richness was less likely to be impacted by plant invasions, which is consistent with impact diminishing at higher trophic levels that might reflect bottom-up control of impacts (de Groot et al., 2007; Scherber et al., 2010).”
• Tree diversity is key for promoting the diversity and abundance of forest‐associated taxa in Europe (2020, background): “…driven by functional links, i.e. high diversity at lower trophic levels increases the diversity of organisms that feed on them (Haddad et al. 2009, Scherber et al. 2010), or by shared responses to forest or environmental drivers, which is the most likely explanation for the correlation between…”