, Volume 142, Issue 4, pp 606–615 | Cite as

Effects of plant diversity, community composition and environmental parameters on productivity in montane European grasslands

  • Ansgar Kahmen
  • Jörg Perner
  • Volker Audorff
  • Wolfgang Weisser
  • Nina Buchmann
Ecosystem Ecology


In the past years, a number of studies have used experimental plant communities to test if biodiversity influences ecosystem functioning such as productivity. It has been argued, however, that the results achieved in experimental studies may have little predictive value for species loss in natural ecosystems. Studies in natural ecosystems have been equivocal, mainly because in natural ecosystems differences in diversity are often confounded with differences in land use history or abiotic parameters. In this study, we investigated the effect of plant diversity on ecosystem functioning in semi-natural grasslands. In an area of 10×20 km, we selected 78 sites and tested the effects of various measures of diversity and plant community composition on productivity. We separated the effects of plant diversity on ecosystem functioning from potentially confounding effects of community composition, management or environmental parameters, using multivariate statistical analyses. In the investigated grasslands, simple measures of biodiversity were insignificant predictors of productivity. However, plant community composition explained productivity very well (R2=0.31) and was a better predictor than environmental variables (soil and site characteristics) or management regime. Thus, complex measures such as community composition and structure are important drivers for ecosystem functions in semi-natural grasslands. Furthermore, our data show that it is difficult to extrapolate results from experimental studies to semi-natural ecosystems, although there is a need to investigate natural ecosystems to fully understand the relationship of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.


Biodiversity Ecosystem functioning Management Path analyses 



This study was supported by grant LC0013 in the BIOLOG program of the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). We are grateful to Carla Wytrykush and Nidal Odat for help in the field as well as Elke Panschitz for assistance in the laboratory. We thank in particular Michael Scherer-Lorenzen for valuable comments on the manuscript.


  1. Aarssen LW (1997) High productivity in grassland ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive species? Oikos 80:183–184Google Scholar
  2. Aarssen LW (2001) On correlations and causations between productivity and species richness in vegetation: predictions from habitat attributes. Basic Appl Ecol 2:105–114Google Scholar
  3. Al-Mufti MM, Sydes CL, Furness SB, Grime JP, Band SR (1977) Quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. J Ecol 65:759–791Google Scholar
  4. Arbuckle JL, Wothke W (1995–1999) AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Small Waters Cooperation, Chicaco, Ill.Google Scholar
  5. Baur B et al (1996) Variation in species richness of plants and diverse groups of invertebrates in three calcareous grasslands of the Swiss Jura mountains. Rev Suisse Zool 103:801–833Google Scholar
  6. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  7. Chapin FS et al (1997) Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277:500–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapin FS et al (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2002) Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship. Nature 416:427–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143Google Scholar
  11. Diaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaz S, Symstad AJ, Chapin FS, Wardle DA, Huenneke LF (2003) Functional diversity revealed by removal experiments. Trends Ecol Evol 18:140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faith DP, Minchin PR, Belbin L (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fukami T, Morin PJ (2003) Productivity–biodiversity relationships depend on the history of community assembly. Nature 424:423–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gough L, Grace JB, Taylor KL (1994) The relationship between species richness and community biomass—the importance of environmental variables. Oikos 70:271–279Google Scholar
  16. Grace JB (1999) The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 2:1–28Google Scholar
  17. Grime JP (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens. Science 277:1260–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grime JP (1998) Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects. J Ecol 86:902–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime JP (2002) Declining plant diversity: empty niches or functional shifts? J Veg Sci 13:457–460Google Scholar
  20. Hector A (1998) The effect of diversity on productivity: detecting the role of species complementarity. Oikos 82:597–599Google Scholar
  21. Hector A et al (1999) Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286:1123–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hector A, et al. (2000) No consistent effect of plant diversity on productivity: response. Science 289:1255aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooper DU, Vitousek PM (1997) The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1302–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooper DU, Vitousek PM (1998) Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecol Monogr 68:121–149Google Scholar
  25. Hundt R (1964) Die Bergwiesen des Harzes, Thüringer Waldes und Erzgebirges. Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  26. Huston MA (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huston MA, McBride AC (2002) Evaluating the relative strengths of biotic versus abiotic controls on ecosystem processes. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  28. Klapp E (1971) Wiesen und Weiden - Eine Grünlandlehre. Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology. Addison–Welsey, Menlo ParkGoogle Scholar
  30. Lawton JH (1994) What do species do in ecosystems. Oikos 71:367–374Google Scholar
  31. Loreau M (1998) Separating sampling and other effects in biodiversity experiments. Oikos 82:600–602Google Scholar
  32. Loreau M (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91:3–17Google Scholar
  33. Loreau M et al (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1997) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 3.0. MjM Software Design, Glenden BeachGoogle Scholar
  37. Mittelbach GG et al (2001) What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82:2381–2396Google Scholar
  38. Mulder CPH, Jumpponen A, Hogberg P, Huss-Danell K (2002) How plant diversity and legumes affect nitrogen dynamics in experimental grassland communities. Oecologia 133:412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naeem S (2002) Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigm. Ecology 83:1537–1552Google Scholar
  40. Naeem S, Thompson LJ, Lawler SP, Lawton JH, Woodfin RM (1994) Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368:734–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naeem S, Hakansson K, Lawton JH, Crawley MJ, Thompson LJ (1996) Biodiversity and plant productivity in a model assemblage of plant species. Oikos 76:259–264Google Scholar
  42. Petchey OL, Hector A, Gaston KJ (2004) How do different measures of functional diversity perform? Ecology 85:847–857Google Scholar
  43. Polley HW, Wilsey BJ, Derner JD (2003) Do species evenness and plant density influence the magnitude of selection and complementarity effects in annual plant species mixtures? Ecol Lett 6:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rajaniemi TK (2003) Explaining productivity-diversity relationships in plants. Oikos 101:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenzweig ML, Abramsky Z (1993) How are diversity and productivity related? In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., pp 52–65Google Scholar
  46. Schaffers AP (2002) Soil, biomass, and management of semi-natural vegetation—Part II. Factors controlling species diversity. Plant Ecol 158:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scherer-Lorenzen M, Palmborg C, Prinz A, Schulze ED (2003) The role of plant diversity and composition for nitrate leaching in grasslands. Ecology 84:1539–1552Google Scholar
  48. Schmid B (2002) The species richness-productivity controversy. Trends Ecol Evol 17:113–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schulze E-D, Mooney HA (1993) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Spehn EM et al (2002) The role of legumes as a component of biodiversity in a cross-European study of grassland biomass nitrogen. Oikos 98:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. SPSS Inc. (2001) SPSS Base 11.0 user’s guide. SPSS, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
  52. Symstad AJ et al (2003) Long-term and large-scale perspectives on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Bioscience 53:89–98Google Scholar
  53. Symstad AJ, Tilman D, Willson J, Knops JMH (1998) Species loss and ecosystem functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos 81:389–397Google Scholar
  54. Tilman D, Wedin D, Knops J (1996) Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300–1302Google Scholar
  56. Tilman D, Knops J, Wendin D, Reich P (2002) Plant diversity and composition: effects on productivity and nutrient dynamics of experimental grasslands. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–35Google Scholar
  57. Troumbis AY (2001) No observational evidence for diversity-enhancing productivity in Mediterranean shrublands? A reply to Wardle. Oecologia 129:622–623Google Scholar
  58. Volz F (1959) Globalstrahlung auf geneigten Hängen. Meteorol Rundsch 11:132–135Google Scholar
  59. Waide RB et al (1999) The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:257–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wardle DA (2001) No observational evidence for diversity enhancing productivity in Mediterranean shrublands. Oecologia 129:620–621Google Scholar
  61. Wardle DA, Zackrisson O, Hornberg G, Gallet C (1997) The influence of island area on ecosystem properties. Science 277:1296–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilsey BJ, Potvin C (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Importance of species evenness in an old field. Ecology 81:887–892Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ansgar Kahmen
    • 1
  • Jörg Perner
    • 2
  • Volker Audorff
    • 3
  • Wolfgang Weisser
    • 2
  • Nina Buchmann
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for BiogeochemistryJenaGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Plant SciencesUniversity of JenaJenaGermany
  3. 3.Bureau for Ecological StudiesBayreuthGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Plant SciencesETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations