Explore the vast range of titles available.

Species diversity is a major determinant of ecosystem productivity, stability, invasibility, and nutrient dynamics. Hundreds of studies spanning terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems show that high-diversity mixtures are approximately twice as productive as monocultures of the same species and that this difference increases through time. These impacts of higher diversity have multiple causes, including interspecific complementarity, greater use of limiting resources, decreased herbivory and disease, and nutrient-cycling feedbacks that increase nutrient stores and supply rates over the long term. These experimentally observed effects of diversity are consistent with predictions based on a variety of theories that share a common feature: All have trade-off-based mechanisms that allow long-term coexistence of many different competing species. Diversity loss has an effect as great as, or greater than, the effects of herbivory, fire, drought, nitrogen addition, elevated CO 2 , and other drivers of environmental change. The preservation, conservation, and restoration of biodiversity should be a high global priority.

Biodiversity loss can alter ecosystem functioning; however, it remains unclear how it alters decomposition—a critical component of biogeochemical cycles in the biosphere. Here, we provide a global-scale meta-analysis to quantify how changes in the diversity of organic matter derived from plants (i.e. litter) affect rates of decomposition. We find that the after-life effects of diversity were significant, and of substantial magnitude, in forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Changes in plant diversity could alter decomposition rates by as much as climate change is projected to alter them. Specifically, diversifying plant litter from mono- to mixed-species increases decomposition rate by 34.7% in forests worldwide, which is comparable in magnitude to the 13.6–26.4% increase in decomposition rates that is projected to occur over the next 50 years in response to climate warming. Thus, biodiversity changes cannot be solely viewed as a response to human influence, such as climate change, but could also be a non-negligible driver of future changes in biogeochemical cycles and climate feedbacks on Earth. There is evidence that reducing plant litter diversity may slow litter decomposition rate. Here, Mori and colleagues perform a global meta-analysis of litter-bag studies to show that mixed-species litter assemblages decompose faster than monospecific assemblages, with a magnitude comparable to the predicted effect of climate warming.

Although the impacts of the loss of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning are well established, the importance of the loss of biodiversity relative to other human-caused drivers of environmental change remains uncertain. Results of 11 experiments show that ecologically relevant decreases in grassland plant diversity influenced productivity at least as much as ecologically relevant changes in nitrogen, water, CO ₂, herbivores, drought, or fire. Moreover, biodiversity became an increasingly dominant driver of ecosystem productivity through time, whereas effects of other factors either declined (nitrogen addition) or remained unchanged (all others). In particular, a change in plant diversity from four to 16 species caused as large an increase in productivity as addition of 54 kg⋅ha ⁻¹⋅y ⁻¹ of fertilizer N, and was as influential as removing a dominant herbivore, a major natural drought, water addition, and fire suppression. A change in diversity from one to 16 species caused a greater biomass increase than 95 kg⋅ha ⁻¹⋅y ⁻¹ of N or any other treatment. Our conclusions are based on >7,000 productivity measurements from 11 long-term experiments (mean length, ∼ 13 y) conducted at a single site with species from a single regional species pool, thus controlling for many potentially confounding factors. Our results suggest that the loss of biodiversity may have at least as great an impact on ecosystem functioning as other anthropogenic drivers of environmental change, and that use of diverse mixtures of species may be as effective in increasing productivity of some biomass crops as fertilization and may better provide ecosystem services.

Grazing by domestic herbivores is the most widespread land use on the planet, and also a major global change driver in grasslands. Yet, experimental evidence on the long-term impacts of livestock grazing on biodiversity and function is largely lacking. Here, we report results from a network of 10 experimental sites from paired grazed and ungrazed grasslands across an aridity gradient, including some of the largest remaining native grasslands on the planet. We show that aridity partly explains the responses of biodiversity and multifunctionality to long-term livestock grazing. Grazing greatly reduced biodiversity and multifunctionality in steppes with higher aridity, while had no effects in steppes with relatively lower aridity. Moreover, we found that long-term grazing further changed the capacity of above- and below-ground biodiversity to explain multifunctionality. Thus, while plant diversity was positively correlated with multifunctionality across grasslands with excluded livestock, soil biodiversity was positively correlated with multifunctionality across grazed grasslands. Together, our cross-site experiment reveals that the impacts of long-term grazing on biodiversity and function depend on aridity levels, with the more arid sites experiencing more negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. We also highlight the fundamental importance of conserving soil biodiversity for protecting multifunctionality in widespread grazed grasslands. Experimental evidence on the long-term impacts of livestock grazing on biodiversity and function is limited. Here, the authors show that grazing impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functions are aggravated with aridity using experimental sites across an aridity gradient.

At the global scale, human activities are threatening the extinction of many species. It remains debated, however, whether there has been corresponding loss of biodiversity at the smaller spatial scales at which species loss often erodes ecosystem functioning, stability and services. Here we consider changes in local biodiversity and productivity over 37 years in 21 grasslands and savannahs with known agricultural land-use histories. We show that, during the century following agricultural abandonment, local plant diversity recovers only incompletely and plant productivity does not significantly recover. By 91 years after agricultural abandonment, despite many local species gains, formerly ploughed fields still had only three quarters of the plant diversity and half of the plant productivity observed in a nearby remnant ecosystem that has never been ploughed. The large and growing extent of recovering ecosystems provides an unprecedented opportunity to reverse the impacts of habitat loss. Active restoration efforts are needed to enable and accelerate recovery. Analysing changes in grasslands and savannahs following agricultural abandonment, the authors show that even after more than 90 years, plant diversity and productivity recovered by only 73% and 53%, respectively.

The global impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change are interlinked, but the feedbacks between them are rarely assessed. Areas with greater tree diversity tend to be more productive, providing a greater carbon sink, and biodiversity loss could reduce these natural carbon sinks. Here, we quantify how tree and shrub species richness could affect biomass production on biome, national and regional scales. We find that GHG mitigation could help maintain tree diversity and thereby avoid a 9–39% reduction in terrestrial primary productivity across different biomes, which could otherwise occur over the next 50 years. Countries that will incur the greatest economic damages from climate change stand to benefit the most from conservation of tree diversity and primary productivity, which contribute to climate change mitigation. Our results emphasize an opportunity for a triple win for climate, biodiversity and society, and highlight that these co-benefits should be the focus of reforestation programmes.Exploring how biodiversity and climate change are interlinked, the authors show that limiting warming could maintain tree diversity, avoiding primary productivity loss. Countries with greater climate change economic costs benefit most: a potential triple win for climate, biodiversity and society.

Increasing plant diversity can increase ecosystem functioning, stability, and services in both natural and managed grasslands, but the effects of herbivore diversity, and especially of livestock diversity, remain underexplored. Given that managed grazing is the most extensive land use worldwide, and that land managers can readily change livestock diversity, we experimentally tested how livestock diversification (sheep, cattle, or both) influenced multidiversity (the diversity of plants, insects, soil microbes, and nematodes) and ecosystem multifunctionality (including plant biomass production, plant leaf N and P, above-ground insect abundance, nutrient cycling, soil C stocks, water regulation, and plant–microbe symbiosis) in the world’s largest remaining grassland. We also considered the potential dependence of ecosystem multifunctionality on multidiversity. We found that livestock diversification substantially increased ecosystem multifunctionality by increasing multidiversity. The link between multidiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality was always stronger than the link between single diversity components and functions. Our work provides insights into the importance of multitrophic diversity to maintain multifunctionality in managed ecosystems and suggests that diversifying livestock could promote both multidiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality in an increasingly managed world.

The biotic mechanisms underlying ecosystem functioning and stability have been extensively—but separately—explored in the literature, making it difficult to understand the relationship between functioning and stability. In this study, we used community models to examine how complementarity and selection, the two major biodiversity mechanisms known to enhance ecosystem biomass production, affect ecosystem stability. Our analytic and simulation results show that although complementarity promotes stability, selection impairs it. The negative effects of selection on stability operate through weakening portfolio effects and selecting species that have high productivity but low tolerance to perturbations (“risk-prone” species). In contrast, complementarity enhances stability by increasing portfolio effects and reducing the relative abundance of risk-prone species. Consequently, ecosystem functioning and stability exhibit either a synergy, if complementarity effects prevail, or trade-off, if selection effects prevail. Across species richness levels, ecosystem functioning and stability tend to be positively related, but negative relationships can occur when selection co-varies with richness. Our findings provide novel insights for understanding the functioning-stability relationship, with potential implications for both ecological research and ecosystem management.

Natural ecosystems store large amounts of carbon globally, as organisms absorb carbon from the atmosphere to build large, long-lasting, or slow-decaying structures such as tree bark or root systems. An ecosystem’s carbon sequestration potential is tightly linked to its biological diversity. Yet when considering future projections, many carbon sequestration models fail to account for the role biodiversity plays in carbon storage. Here, we assess the consequences of plant biodiversity loss for carbon storage under multiple climate and land-use change scenarios. We link a macroecological model projecting changes in vascular plant richness under different scenarios with empirical data on relationships between biodiversity and biomass. We find that biodiversity declines from climate and land use change could lead to a global loss of between 7.44-103.14 PgC (global sustainability scenario) and 10.87-145.95 PgC (fossil-fueled development scenario). This indicates a self-reinforcing feedback loop, where higher levels of climate change lead to greater biodiversity loss, which in turn leads to greater carbon emissions and ultimately more climate change. Conversely, biodiversity conservation and restoration can help achieve climate change mitigation goals.

Anthropogenic drivers of environmental change often have multiple effects, including changes in biodiversity, species composition, and ecosystem functioning. It remains unknown whether such shifts in biodiversity and species composition may, themselves, be major contributors to the total, long-term impacts of anthropogenic drivers on ecosystem functioning. Moreover, although numerous experiments have shown that random losses of species impact the functioning of ecosystems, human-caused losses of biodiversity are rarely random. Here we use results from long-term grassland field experiments to test for direct effects of chronic nutrient enrichment on ecosystem productivity, and for indirect effects of enrichment on productivity mediated by resultant species losses. We found that ecosystem productivity decreased through time most in plots that lost the most species. Chronic nitrogen addition also led to the nonrandom loss of initially dominant native perennial C ₄ grasses. This loss of dominant plant species was associated with twice as great a loss of productivity per lost species than occurred with random species loss in a nearby biodiversity experiment. Thus, although chronic nitrogen enrichment initially increased productivity, it also led to loss of plant species, including initially dominant species, which then caused substantial diminishing returns from nitrogen fertilization. In contrast, elevated CO ₂ did not decrease grassland plant diversity, and it consistently promoted productivity over time. Our results support the hypothesis that the long-term impacts of anthropogenic drivers of environmental change on ecosystem functioning can strongly depend on how such drivers gradually decrease biodiversity and restructure communities.