Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 87–102 | Cite as

Diversity-productivity relations at a northern prairie site: An investigation using spectral data

  • A. DavidsonEmail author
  • F. Csillag
  • J. Wilmshurst
Article

Abstract

The impact of decreasing plant diversity on terrestrial ecosystem productivity remains controversial. Recent studies generally suggest that diverse plant communities are more productive than depauperate versions. However, there is less agreement as to whether this is caused by the number of species present, the identities of the species present, the number of functional groups that these species make up, or by which functional groups are represented. This study evaluates whether relationships between plant diversity and productivity in northern mixed grass prairie are dependent on (a) the diversity measure used (species richness vs. functional richness), (b) the productivity measure utilized, or (c) the scale of observation. We collected plant diversity and productivity information over circular plots of 0.5 m diameter during the summer of 1998, then used a spatially nested sampling design to scale each property and their relationships to 2.5 m, 10 m and 50 m sampling resolutions. Observed diversity-productivity relationships were dependent on all of the above factors. Richness-productivity relationships were found to be mostly asymptotic at all observational scales. The presence of particular species, and functional groups, alone or in combination all had significant effects on productivity at the plot (0.5m) level, but not at coarser resolutions. These results were consistent with those of other studies, and suggest that the higher productivities of diverse grassland plots in our grassland site might result from the effects of diversity and the presence of productive species. The lack of species effects at coarser resolutions suggest other mechanisms are responsible for such relationships at these scales.

Keywords

Diversity Functional group Grasslands Productivity Radiometry Richness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarssen, L. W. 2001. On correlations and causations between productivity and species richness: predictions from habitat attributes. Basic and Applied Ecology 2: 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourlière, F. and Hadley, M. 1970. The ecology oftropical savannas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulla, L. 1996. Relationships between biotic diversity and primary productivity in savanna grasslands. In: O.T. Solbrig, E. Medina and J.F. Silva (eds.), Biodiversity and Savanna Ecosystem Processes. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csillag, F., Kertész, M., Davidson, A. and Mitchell, S. 2001. On the measurement of diversity-productivity relationships in a northern mixed grass prairie (Grasslands National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada). Community Ecology 2: 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, A. 2002. Integrating field sampling and remotely sensed data for monitoring the function and composition of northern Mixed Grass prairie. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, National Library of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 225 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, A. and Csillag, F. 2001. The influence of vegetation index and spatial resolution on a two-date remote sensing derived relation to C4 species coverage. Remote Sensing of Environment 75: 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foster, B.L. and Dickson, T.L. 2004. Grassland diversity and productivity: the interplay of resource availability and propagule pools. Ecology 85: 1541–1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fridley, J.D. 2002. Resource availability dominates and alters the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem productivity in experimental plant communities. Oecologia 132: 271–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodin, D.G., Gao J., and Henebry, G.M. 2004. The effect of solar zenith angle and sensor view angle on observed patterns of spatial structure in tallgrass prairie. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 42: 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gough, L., Osenberg, C., Gross, K. and S., C. 2000. Fertilization effects on species diversity and primary productivity in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89: 428–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross, K.L., Willig, M.R., Gough, L., Inouye, R. and Cox, S.B. 2000. Patterns of species density and productivity at different spatial scales in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 89: 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guo, Q., Shaffer, T. and Buhl, T. 2006. Community maturity, species saturation and the variant diversity–productivity relationships in grasslands. Ecology Letters 9: 1284–1292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hector, A., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., Caldeira, M. C., Dimer, M., Dimitrakapoulos, P. G., Finn, J. A., Freitas, H., Giller, P. S., Good, J., Harris, R., Högberg, P., Huss-Danell, K., Joshi, J., Jumpponen, A., Körner, C., Leadley, P. W., Loreau, M., Minns, A., Mulder, C. P. H., O’Donovan, G., Otway, S., Pereira, J. S., Prinz, A., Read, D. J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schulze, E.-D., Siamantziouras, A.-S. D., Spehn, E. M., Terry, A. C., Troumbis, A. Y., Woodward, F. I., Yachi, S., and Lawton, J. H. 1999. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science 286: 1123–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodgson, J.G., Thompson, K., Wilson, P.J. and Bogaard, A. 1998. Does biodiversity determine ecosystem function? The Ecotron experiment reconsidered. Functional Ecology 12: 843–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooper, D.U. 1998. The role of complementarity and competition in ecosystem responses to variation in plant diversity. Ecology 79: 704–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., La-vorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setala, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J., Wardle, D.A. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 7: 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hooper, D.U. and Vitousek, P.M. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science 277: 1302–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang, Y, Street-Perrott, F.A., Metcalf, S.E., Brenner, M., More-land, M., Freeland, K.H. 2001. Climate Change as the Dominant Control on Glacial-Interglacial Variations on C3 and C4 Plant Abundance. Science 293(31 August 2001): 1647–1651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Huston, M., 1993. Biological diversity, soils and econonmics. Science, 262: 1676–1680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Huston, M.A. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110: 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huston, M. A., Aarssen, L. w., Austin, M. P., Cade, B. S., Fridley, J. D., Garnier, E., Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J., Lauenroth, W. K., Thompson, K., Vandermeer, J. H., and Wardle, D. A. 2000. No consistent effect of plant diversity on productivity. Science 289: 1255a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, K.H., Vogt, K.A., Clark, H.J., Schmitz, O.J. and Vogt, D.J. 1996. Biodiversity and the productivity and stability of ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kutiel, P. and Danin, A. 1987. Annual-species diversity and above-ground phytomass in relation to some soil properties in the sand dunes of the northern Sharon Plains, Israel. Vegetatio 70: 45–59.Google Scholar
  24. Lauenroth, W.K., Coffin, D.P., Burke, I.C., and Virginia, R.A. 1997. Interactions between demographic and ecosystem processes in a semi-arid and arid grassland: a challenge for plant functional types. In T.M. Smith, H.H. Shugart & F.I. Woodward (eds.), Plant Functional Types. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 234–254.Google Scholar
  25. Leriche, H., Le Roux, X., Gignoux, J., Tuzet, A., Fritzn, H., Abbadie, L. and Loreau, M. 2001. Which functional processes control the short-term effect of grazing on net primary production in grasslands? Oecologia 129: 114–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Loreau, M. 1998. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: A mechanistic model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 5632–5636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loreau, M. and Hector, A. 2001. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412: 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milner, C. and Hughes, R.E. 1968. Methods for the Measurement of Primary Production of Grassland. IBP Handbook No. 6. Black-well, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Morgan Ernest, S.K. and Brown, J.H. 2001. Homeostasis and compensation: the role of species and resources in ecosystem stability. Ecology 82: 2118–2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Naeem, S., Thompson, L.J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H. and Wood-fin, R. M. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368: 734–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ovington, J.D., Heitkamp, D. and Lawrence, D.B. 1963. Plant biomass and productivity of prairie, savanna, oakwood and maize field ecosystemsin central Minnesota. Ecology 44: 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ricklefs, R.E. 1990. Ecology. Freeman, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenzweig, M.L. 1992. Species diversity gradients: we know more and less than we thought. Journal of Mammalogy 73: 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sala, O.E., Lauenroth, W.K. and Golluscio, R.A. 1997. Plant functional types in temperate semi-arid regions. In: T.M. Smith, H.H. Shugart and F.I. Woodward (eds.), Plant Functional Types. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 217–233.Google Scholar
  35. Schwartz, M. W., Brigham, C. A., Hoeksema, J. D., Lyons, K. G., Mills, M. H., and van Mantgem, P. J. 2000. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: Implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia 122: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spehn, E.M., Joshi, J., Schmid, B., Diemer, M. and Körner, C. 2000. Above-ground resource use increases with plant species richness in experimental grassland ecosystems. Functional Ecology 14: 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stubbendieck, J., Hatch, S.L. and Butterfield, C.H. 1992. North American Range Plants. University of Nebraska Press, Nebraska, USA, 493 pp.Google Scholar
  38. The Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, U.S.A. pp 1392.Google Scholar
  39. Tieszen, L.L., Reed, B.C., Bliss, N.B., Wylie, B.K. and DeJong, D.D. 1997. NDVI, C3 and C4 production, and distributions in Great Plains grassland land cover classes. Ecological Applications 7: 59–78.Google Scholar
  40. Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80: 1455–1474.Google Scholar
  41. Tilman, D. 2000. Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature 405(11 May 2000): 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tilman, D. 2001. Effects of diversity and composition on grassland stability and productivity. In: M.C Press, N.J. Huntly and S.A. Levin (eds.), Ecology: Achievement and Challenge. Blackwell Science, London, UK, pp. 183–207.Google Scholar
  43. Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., and Sie-mann, E. 1997a. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277: 1300–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tilman, D., Lehman, C.L. and Thomson, K.T. 1997b. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences 94: 1857–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tilman, D., Reich, P. B., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Mielke, T., and Lehman, C. 2001. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294: 843–845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Webster, R. 1979. Nested classification and sampling. In: R. Webster (ed.), Quantitative Numerical Methods in Soil Classification Survey. Oxford University Press, Bristol, UK. pp 90–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2007

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Western Service CentreParks Canada AgencyWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Current address: National Land and Water Information ServiceAgriculture and AgriFood CanadaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations