Measuring ecosystem function: consequences arising from variation in biomass-productivity relationships
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Seagrass Spatial scale Thalassia testudinumReferences
- 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
- Begon, M., Townsend, C.R. and Harper, J.L. 2006. Ecology: from Individuals to Ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Carpenter, R.C. 1986. Partitioning herbivory and its effects on coralreef algal communities. Ecol. Monogr. 56: 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cubit, J.D. 1984. Herbivory and the seasonal abundance of algae on a high intertidal rocky shore. Ecology 65: 1904–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cyr, H. and Pace, M.L. 1993. Magnitude and patterns of herbivory in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 361: 148–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Duarte, C.M. and Chiscano, C.L. 1999. Seagrass biomass and production: a reassessment. Aquatic Bot. 65: 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Gaylord, B., Blanchette, C.A. and Denny, M.W. 1994. Mechanical consequences of size in waveswept algae. Ecol. Monogr. 64: 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Gurevitch, J., Scheiner, S.M. and Fox, G.A. 2002. The Ecology of Plants. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Krebs, C.J. 2001. Ecology. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, CA. 5th edition.Google Scholar
- Menge, B.A. 1976. Organization of NewEngland rocky intertidal community role of predation, competition, and environmental heterogeneity. Ecol. Monogr. 46: 355–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Odum, H.T. 1959. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Quinn, G.P. and Keough, M.J. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ricklefs, R.E. and Miller, G.L. 2000. Ecology. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- SAS Institute, Inc. 2001. JMP Version 4.0.4.Google Scholar
- Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 3rd edititon.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
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.