Community Ecology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 39–44 | Cite as

Measuring ecosystem function: consequences arising from variation in biomass-productivity relationships

  • C. P. terHorstEmail author
  • P. Munguia
Open Access


Species diversity loss is expected to alter ecosystem function, but previous work has demonstrated inconsistent relationships between these two factors. Productivity is the most common measure of ecosystem function, but given the difficulty in measuring productivity, standing biomass or change in biomass are frequently used as proxy measures. A review of the recent ecosystem-function literature revealed that 93% of studies measure productivity as biomass, thereby assuming a strong positive relationship between these two variables. We tested this assumption by measuring biomass and productivity in seagrass beds in the Gulf of Mexico. We found that the relationship between standing biomass and productivity could be positive or negative, depending on site. Change in biomass over months inconsistently underestimated short-term productivity. The relationship between biomass and productivity may depend on plant age, successional stage, or site-specific rates of tissue loss to herbivory, senescence, or disturbance. Our results suggest that if biomass continues to be used as a measure of productivity without justification, highly productive communities that typically show little change in biomass, such as healthy climax communities, will not be interpreted as such. The conflicting results of previous studies investigating the relationship between diversity and productivity may be due to differences in the inherently variable relationship between biomass and productivity at different sites and scales.


Seagrass Spatial scale Thalassia testudinum 


  1. Agawin, N.S.R., Duarte, C.M., Fortes, M.D., Uri, J.S. and Vermaat, J.E. 2001. Temporal changes in the abundance, leaf growth and photosynthesis of three cooccurring Philippine seagrasses. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 260: 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begon, M., Townsend, C.R. and Harper, J.L. 2006. Ecology: from Individuals to Ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Belsky, A.J., Carson, W.P., Jensen, C.L. and Fox, G.A. 1993. Over-compensation by plants herbivore optimization or red herring. Evolutionary Ecology 7: 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchette, C.A. 1996. Seasonal patterns of disturbance influence recruitment of the sea palm, Postelsia palmaeformis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 197:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruno, J.F., Boyer, K.E., Duffy, J.E., Lee, S.C. and Kertesz, J.S. 2005. Effects of macroalgal species identity and richness on primary production in benthic marine communities. Ecol. Lett. 8: 1165–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruno, J.F., Lee S.C., Kertesz, J.S., Carpenter, R.C., Long, Z.T. and-Duffy, J.E. 2006. Partitioning the effects of algal species identity and richness on benthic marine primary production. Oikos 115: 170–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, R.C. 1986. Partitioning herbivory and its effects on coralreef algal communities. Ecol. Monogr. 56: 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cubit, J.D. 1984. Herbivory and the seasonal abundance of algae on a high intertidal rocky shore. Ecology 65: 1904–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cyr, H. and Pace, M.L. 1993. Magnitude and patterns of herbivory in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 361: 148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayton, P.K., Tegner, M.J., Edwards, P.B. and Riser, K.L. 1999. Temporal and spatial scales of kelp demography: The role of oceanographic climate. Ecol. Monogr. 69: 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downing, A.L. and Leibold, M.A. 2002. Ecosystem consequences of species richness and composition in pond food webs. Nature 416: 837–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duarte, C.M. and Chiscano, C.L. 1999. Seagrass biomass and production: a reassessment. Aquatic Bot. 65: 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duffy, J.E., Macdonald, K.S., Rhode, J.M. and Parker, J.D. 2001. Grazer diversity, functional redundancy, and productivity in seagrass beds: An experimental test. Ecology 82: 2417–2434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fourqurean, J.W., Willsie, A., Rose, C.D. and Rutten, L.M. 2001. Spatial and temporal pattern in seagrass community composition and productivity in south Florida. Mar. Biol. 138: 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaylord, B., Blanchette, C.A. and Denny, M.W. 1994. Mechanical consequences of size in waveswept algae. Ecol. Monogr. 64: 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gower, S.T., McMurtrie, R.E. and Murty, D. 1996. Aboveground net primary production decline with stand age: Potential causes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11: 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurevitch, J., Scheiner, S.M. and Fox, G.A. 2002. The Ecology of Plants. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Hector, A., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., Caldeira, M.C., Diemer, M., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Finn, J.A., Freitas, H., Giller, P.S., Good, J., Harris, R., Hogberg, P., Huss-Danell, K., Joshi, J., Jumpponen, A., Korner, C., Leadley, P.W., Loreau, M., Minns, A., Mulder, C.P.H., O’Donovan, G., Otway, S.J., 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: 11231127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. and Wardle, D.A. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75: 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krebs, C.J. 2001. Ecology. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, CA. 5th edition.Google Scholar
  21. Menge, B.A. 1976. Organization of NewEngland rocky intertidal community role of predation, competition, and environmental heterogeneity. Ecol. Monogr. 46: 355–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Odum, H.T. 1959. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  23. Odum, H.T. and Odum, E.P. 1955. Trophic structure and productivity of a windward coral reef community on Eniwetok Atoll. Ecol Monogr. 25: 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paige, K.N. and Whitham, T.G. 1987. Overcompensation in response to mammalian herbivory the advantage of being eaten. Am. Nat. 129: 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinn, G.P. and Keough, M.J. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ricklefs, R.E. and Miller, G.L. 2000. Ecology. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenzweig, M.L. and Abramsky, Z. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? In: Ricklefs R.E. and Schluter D. (eds), Species Diversity in Ecological Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. pp. 52–65.Google Scholar
  28. Roxburgh, S.H., Berry, S.L., Buckley, T.N., Barnes, B. and Roderick, M.L. 2005. What is NPP? Inconsistent accounting of respiratory fluxes in the definition of net primary production. Funct. Ecol. 19: 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. SAS Institute, Inc. 2001. JMP Version 4.0.4.Google Scholar
  30. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 3rd edititon.Google Scholar
  31. Tomlinson, P.B. and Vargo, G.A. 1966. On morphology and anatomy of turtle grass Thalassia testudinum (Hydrocharitaceae) .I. Vegetative morphology. Bull. Mar. Sci. 16: 748–761.Google Scholar
  32. Valentine, J.F., Heck, K.L., Busby, J. and Webb, D. 1997. Experimental evidence that herbivory increases shoot density and productivity in a subtropical turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum) meadow. Oecologia 112: 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, S.L. and Heck, K.L. 2001. Seagrass community ecology. In: Bertness, M.D., Gaines, S.D. and Hay, M.E. (eds), Marine Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. pp. 317–337.Google Scholar
  34. Zieman, J.C. 1974. Methods for study of growth and production of turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum Konig. Aquaculture 4: 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, 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 Biological ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations