Explore the vast range of titles available.

There now is ample experimental evidence that speciose assemblages are more productive and provide a greater amount of ecosystem services than depauperate ones. However, these experiments often conclude that there is a higher probability of including complementary species combinations in assemblages with more species and lack a priori prediction about which species combinations maximize function. Here, I report the results of an experiment manipulating the evolutionary relatedness of constituent plant species across a richness gradient. I show that assemblages with distantly related species contributed most to the higher biomass production in multispecies assemblages, through species complementarity. Species produced more biomass than predicted from their monocultures when they were in plots with distantly related species and produced the amount of biomass predicted from monoculture when sown with close relatives. This finding suggests that in the absence of any other information, combining distantly related species in restored or managed landscapes may serve to maximize biomass production and carbon sequestration, thus merging calls to conserve evolutionary history and maximize ecosystem function.

1. The goal of conservation and restoration activities is to maintain biological diversity and the ecosystem services that this diversity provides. These activities traditionally focus on the measures of species diversity that include only information on the presence and abundance of species. Yet how diversity influences ecosystem function depends on the traits and niches filled by species. 2. Biological diversity can be quantified in ways that account for functional and phenotypic differences. A number of such measures of functional diversity (FD) have been created, quantifying the distribution of traits in a community or the relative magnitude of species similarities and differences. We review FD measures and why they are intuitively useful for understanding ecological patterns and are important for management. 3. In order for FD to be meaningful and worth measuring, it must be correlated with ecosystem function, and it should provide information above and beyond what species richness or diversity can explain. We review these two propositions, examining whether the strength of the correlation between FD and species richness varies across differing environmental gradients and whether FD offers greater explanatory power of ecosystem function than species richness. 4. Previous research shows that the relationship between FD and richness is complex and context dependent. Different functional traits can show individual responses to different gradients, meaning that important changes in diversity can occur with minimal change in richness. Further, FD can explain variation in ecosystem function even when richness does not. 5. Synthesis and applications. FD measures those aspects of diversity that potentially affect community assembly and function. Given this explanatory power, FD should be incorporated into conservation and restoration decision-making, especially for those efforts attempting to reconstruct or preserve healthy, functioning ecosystems.

1. It is now commonplace in community ecology to assess patterns of phylogenetic or functional diversity in order to inform our understanding of the assembly mechanisms that structure communities. While both phylogenetic and functional approaches have been used in conceptually similar ways, it is not clear if they both in fact reveal similar community diversity patterns or support similar inferences. We review studies that use both measures to determine the degree to which they support congruent patterns and inferences about communities. 2. We performed a literature review with 188 analyses from 79 published papers that compared some facet of phylogenetic (PD) and functional diversity (FD) in community ecology. These studies generally report four main cases in which phylogenetic and functional information are used together in community analyses, to determine if: (a) there were phylogenetic signals in the measured traits in communities; (b) PD and FD were correlated with one another; (c) standardized PD and FD measures similarly revealed patterns of community over- or under-dispersion; and (d) PD and FD were both related to other explanatory variables (e.g. elevation) similarly. 3. We found that the vast majority of studies found both strong phylogenetic signals in their traits and positive correlations of PD and FD measures across sites. However, and surprisingly, we found substantial incongruencies for the other tests. Phylogenetic and functional dispersion patterns were congruent only about half the time. Specifically, when communities were phylogenetically over-dispersed, these same communities were more likely to be functionally under-dispersed. Similarly, we found that phylogenetic and functional relationships with independent predictors were incongruent in about half of the analyses. 4. Synthesis. Phylogenetic signal tests and PD-FD correlations appear to strongly support the congruence between traits and phylogeny. It is surprising that strong phylogenetic signals appeared so ubiquitous given that ecological studies often analyse phylogenetically incomplete sets of species that have undergone ecological sorting. Despite the largely congruent findings based on phylogenetic signal tests and PD-FD correlations, we found substantial incongruencies when researchers assessed either dispersion patterns or relationships with independent predictors. We discuss a number of potential ecological, evolutionary and methodological reasons for these incongruencies. Phylogenetic and functional information might reflect species ecological differences unequally with phylogenies better reflecting multivariate conserved elements of ecological similarity, and single traits better able to capture recent divergence, and both elements influence ecological patterns.

Ecosystem stability in variable environments depends on the diversity of form and function of the constituent species. Species phenotypes and ecologies are the product of evolution, and the evolutionary history represented by co‐occurring species has been shown to be an important predictor of ecosystem function. If phylogenetic distance is a surrogate for ecological differences, then greater evolutionary diversity should buffer ecosystems against environmental variation and result in greater ecosystem stability. We calculated both abundance‐weighted and unweighted phylogenetic measures of plant community diversity for a long‐term biodiversity–ecosystem function experiment at Cedar Creek, Minnesota, USA. We calculated a detrended measure of stability in aboveground biomass production in experimental plots and showed that phylogenetic relatedness explained variation in stability. Our results indicate that communities where species are evenly and distantly related to one another are more stable compared to communities where phylogenetic relationships are more clumped. This result could be explained by a phylogenetic sampling effect, where some lineages show greater stability in productivity compared to other lineages, and greater evolutionary distances reduce the chance of sampling only unstable groups. However, we failed to find evidence for similar stabilities among closely related species. Alternatively, we found evidence that plot biomass variance declined with increasing phylogenetic distances, and greater evolutionary distances may represent species that are ecologically different (phylogenetic complementarity). Accounting for evolutionary relationships can reveal how diversity in form and function may affect stability.

Background: Two decades of research showing that increasing plant diversity results in greater community productivity has been predicated on greater functional diversity allowing access to more of the total available resources. Thus, understanding phenotypic attributes that allow species to partition resources is fundamentally important to explaining diversity-productivity relationships. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we use data from a long-term experiment (Cedar Creek, MN) and compare the extent to which productivity is explained by seven types of community metrics of functional variation: 1) species richness, 2) variation in 10 individual traits, 3) functional group richness, 4) a distance-based measure of functional diversity, 5) a hierarchical multivariate clustering method, 6) a nonmetric multidimensional scaling approach, and 7) a phylogenetic diversity measure, summing phylogenetic branch lengths connecting community members together and may be a surrogate for ecological differences. Although most of these diversity measures provided significant explanations of variation in productivity, the presence of a nitrogen fixer and phylogenetic diversity were the two best explanatory variables. Further, a statistical model that included the presence of a nitrogen fixer, seed weight and phylogenetic diversity was a better explanation of community productivity than other models. Conclusions: Evolutionary relationships among species appear to explain patterns of grassland productivity. Further, these results reveal that functional differences among species involve a complex suite of traits and that perhaps phylogenetic relationships provide a better measure of the diversity among species that contributes to productivity than individual or small groups of traits.

The Anthropocene epoch is partly defined by anthropogenic spread of crops beyond their centres of origin. At global scales, evidence indicates that species-level taxonomic diversity of crops being cultivated on large-scale agricultural lands has increased linearly over the past 50 years. Yet environmental and socio-economic differences support expectations that temporal changes in crop diversity vary across regions. Ecological theory also suggests that changes in crop taxonomic diversity may not necessarily reflect changes in the evolutionary diversity of crops. We used data from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations to assess changes in crop taxonomic- and phylogenetic diversity across 22 subcontinental-scale regions from 1961-2014. We document certain broad consistencies across nearly all regions: i) little change in crop diversity from 1961 through to the late 1970s; followed by ii) a 10-year period of sharp diversification through the early 1980s; followed by iii) a \"levelling-off\" of crop diversification beginning in the early 1990s. However, the specific onset and duration of these distinct periods differs significantly across regions and are unrelated to agricultural expansion, indicating that unique policy or environmental conditions influence the crops being grown within a given region. Additionally, while the 1970s and 1980s are defined by region-scale increases in crop diversity this period marks the increasing dominance of a small number of crop species and lineages; a trend resulting in detectable increases in the similarity of crops being grown across regions. Broad similarities in the species-level taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity of crops being grown across regions, primarily at large industrial scales captured by FAO data, represent a unique feature of the Anthropocene epoch. Yet nuanced asymmetries in regional-scale trends suggest that environmental and socio-economic factors play a key role in shaping observed macro-ecological changes in the plant diversity on agricultural lands.

The effect of biodiversity on primary productivity has been a hot topic in ecology for over 20 years. Biodiversity–productivity relationships in natural ecosystems are highly variable, although positive relationships are most common. Understanding the conditions under which different relationships emerge is still a major challenge. Here, by analyzing HerbDivNet data, a global survey of natural grasslands, we show that biodiversity stabilizes rather than increases plant productivity in natural grasslands at the global scale. Our results suggest that the effect of species richness on productivity shifts from strongly positive in low-productivity communities to strongly negative in high-productivity communities. Thus, plant richness maintains community productivity at intermediate levels. As a result, it stabilizes plant productivity against environmental heterogeneity across space. Unifying biodiversity–productivity and biodiversity–spatial stability relationships at the global scale provides a new perspective on the functioning of natural ecosystems. Biodiversity–productivity relationships in natural ecosystems are highly variable, although positive relationships are most common. Here, using HerbDivNet data, the authors show that biodiversity stabilizes rather than increases plant productivity in natural grasslands at the global scale.

In the face of the biodiversity crisis, it is argued that we should prioritize species in order to capture high functional diversity (FD). Because species traits often reflect shared evolutionary history, many researchers have assumed that maximizing phylogenetic diversity (PD) should indirectly capture FD, a hypothesis that we name the “phylogenetic gambit”. Here, we empirically test this gambit using data on ecologically relevant traits from >15,000 vertebrate species. Specifically, we estimate a measure of surrogacy of PD for FD. We find that maximizing PD results in an average gain of 18% of FD relative to random choice. However, this average gain obscures the fact that in over one-third of the comparisons, maximum PD sets contain less FD than randomly chosen sets of species. These results suggest that, while maximizing PD protection can help to protect FD, it represents a risky conservation strategy. An ongoing conservation question is if we can maintain functional diversity by optimizing for preservation of phylogenetic diversity. Here, Mazel et al. show that functional diversity increases with phylogenetic diversity in some clades but not others, and thus could be a risky conservation strategy.

How communities assemble is a central and fundamental question in ecology. However, it has been mired by conflicting conclusions about whether community assembly is driven by environmental filtering, biotic interactions, and/or dispersal processes. Elevational gradients provide an ideal system for exploring the biotic and abiotic forces influencing the processes of community assembly, as these both change dramatically on mountains over short spatial distances. Here, we explored bird taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity, and assessed the role of spatial (area) and environmental factors (temperature, precipitation, plant richness, habitat heterogeneity, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)) in shaping bird distributions and community structure along a 3600 m elevational gradient in the central Himalayas, China. Our results showed that the three dimensions of diversity consistently showed hump‐shaped patterns with similar peaks. Richness‐controlled functional diversity decreased with elevation, while richness‐controlled phylogenetic diversity showed a Mid Valley pattern. Mean pairwise functional distance decreased linearly with elevation, and mean pairwise phylogenetic distance was nearly constant along the elevation gradient but increased rapidly at higher elevations (above 3900–4200 m a.s.l). The functional structure of bird communities was more clustered relative to source pools (i.e. species more similar to one another) across the elevation gradient, suggesting abiotic or habitat filtering likely governed the assembly processes. However, phylogenetic structure was more clustered relative to source pools at mid‐elevations and more overdispersed (i.e. species are less related) at low and high elevations. In addition, primary productivity (NDVI and/or habitat heterogeneity and/or plant richness) was a good predictor of variation for most diversity metrics. Taken together, our study demonstrated contrasting elevational patterns assessed from functional and phylogenetic measures and highlighted the necessity of considering multiple measures of biodiversity when assessing community structure.

Loss of biological diversity because of extinction is one of the most pronounced changes to the global environment. For several decades, researchers have tried to understand how changes in biodiversity might impact biomass production by examining how biomass correlates with a number of biodiversity metrics (especially the number of species and functional groups). This body of research has focused on species with the implicit assumption that they are independent entities. However, functional and ecological similarities are shaped by patterns of common ancestry, such that distantly related species might contribute more to production than close relatives, perhaps by increasing niche breadth. Here, we analyze 2 decades of experiments performed in grassland ecosystems throughout the world and examine whether the evolutionary relationships among the species comprising a community predict how biodiversity impacts plant biomass production. We show that the amount of phylogenetic diversity within communities explained significantly more variation in plant community biomass than other measures of diversity, such as the number of species or functional groups. Our results reveal how evolutionary history can provide critical information for understanding, predicting, and potentially ameliorating the effects of biodiversity loss and should serve as an impetus for new biodiversity experiments.