View in EDS

Contrasting effects of plant diversity on β‐ and γ‐diversity of grassland invertebrates.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Contrasting effects of plant diversity on β‐ and γ‐diversity of grassland invertebrates.
Authors: Ebeling, A.1 (AUTHOR) anne.ebeling@uni-jena.de, Lind, E. W.2 (AUTHOR), Meyer, S. T.3 (AUTHOR), Barnes, A. D.4,5,6,7 (AUTHOR), Borer, E. T.2 (AUTHOR), Eisenhauer, N.4,6 (AUTHOR), Weisser, W. W.3 (AUTHOR)
Source: Ecology. Jul2020, Vol. 101 Issue 7, p1-10. 10p.
Subjects: Contrast effect, Arthropod diversity, Species diversity, Plant diversity, Grasslands, Plant communities
Abstract: The diversity of primary producers strongly affects the structure and diversity of species assemblages at other trophic levels. However, limited knowledge exists of how plant diversity effects at small spatial scales propagate to consumer communities at larger spatial scales. We assessed arthropod community β and γ‐diversity in response to experimentally manipulated plant community richness in two long‐term grassland biodiversity experiments (Jena, Germany and Cedar Creek, USA) replicated over two years. We calculated arthropod species turnover among all plot combinations (β‐diversity), and accumulated number of arthropod species occurring on (1) all pairwise plot combinations and (2) 40 randomly selected six‐plot combinations (γ‐diversity). The components of arthropod diversity were tested against two measures of plant diversity, namely average plant α‐diversity (PSR¯) and the average difference in plant α‐diversity between plots (ΔPSR). Whereas PSR¯ points to the overall importance of plant α‐diversity for arthropod community turnover and diversity on a larger scale, ΔPSR represents the role of habitat heterogeneity. We demonstrate that arthropod γ‐diversity is supported by high, homogeneous plant α‐diversity, despite lower arthropod β‐diversity among high‐ compared to low‐diversity plant communities. We also show that, in six‐plot combinations, average plant α‐diversity has a positive influence on arthropod γ‐diversity only when homogeneity in plant α‐diversity is also high. Varying heterogeneity in six‐plot combinations showed that combinations consisting solely of plots with an intermediate level of plant α‐diversity support a higher number of arthropod species compared to combinations that contain a mix of high‐ and low‐diversity plots. In fact, equal levels of arthropod diversity were found for six‐plot combinations with only intermediate or high plant α‐diversity, due to saturating benefits of local and larger‐scale plant diversity for higher trophic levels. Our results, alongside those of recent observational studies, strongly suggest that maintaining high α‐diversity in plant communities is important for conserving multiple components of arthropod diversity. As arthropods carry out a range of essential ecosystem functions, such as pollination and natural pest‐control, our findings provide crucial insight for effective planning of human‐dominated landscapes to maximize both ecological and economic benefits in grassland systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 144335117
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Contrasting effects of plant diversity on β‐ and γ‐diversity of grassland invertebrates.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ebeling%2C+A%2E%22">Ebeling, A.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> anne.ebeling@uni-jena.de</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lind%2C+E%2E+W%2E%22">Lind, E. W.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meyer%2C+S%2E+T%2E%22">Meyer, S. T.</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Barnes%2C+A%2E+D%2E%22">Barnes, A. D.</searchLink><relatesTo>4,5,6,7</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Borer%2C+E%2E+T%2E%22">Borer, E. T.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eisenhauer%2C+N%2E%22">Eisenhauer, N.</searchLink><relatesTo>4,6</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weisser%2C+W%2E+W%2E%22">Weisser, W. W.</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Ecology%22">Ecology</searchLink>. Jul2020, Vol. 101 Issue 7, p1-10. 10p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Contrast+effect%22">Contrast effect</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arthropod+diversity%22">Arthropod diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Species+diversity%22">Species diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Plant+diversity%22">Plant diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grasslands%22">Grasslands</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Plant+communities%22">Plant communities</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The diversity of primary producers strongly affects the structure and diversity of species assemblages at other trophic levels. However, limited knowledge exists of how plant diversity effects at small spatial scales propagate to consumer communities at larger spatial scales. We assessed arthropod community β and γ‐diversity in response to experimentally manipulated plant community richness in two long‐term grassland biodiversity experiments (Jena, Germany and Cedar Creek, USA) replicated over two years. We calculated arthropod species turnover among all plot combinations (β‐diversity), and accumulated number of arthropod species occurring on (1) all pairwise plot combinations and (2) 40 randomly selected six‐plot combinations (γ‐diversity). The components of arthropod diversity were tested against two measures of plant diversity, namely average plant α‐diversity (PSR¯) and the average difference in plant α‐diversity between plots (ΔPSR). Whereas PSR¯ points to the overall importance of plant α‐diversity for arthropod community turnover and diversity on a larger scale, ΔPSR represents the role of habitat heterogeneity. We demonstrate that arthropod γ‐diversity is supported by high, homogeneous plant α‐diversity, despite lower arthropod β‐diversity among high‐ compared to low‐diversity plant communities. We also show that, in six‐plot combinations, average plant α‐diversity has a positive influence on arthropod γ‐diversity only when homogeneity in plant α‐diversity is also high. Varying heterogeneity in six‐plot combinations showed that combinations consisting solely of plots with an intermediate level of plant α‐diversity support a higher number of arthropod species compared to combinations that contain a mix of high‐ and low‐diversity plots. In fact, equal levels of arthropod diversity were found for six‐plot combinations with only intermediate or high plant α‐diversity, due to saturating benefits of local and larger‐scale plant diversity for higher trophic levels. Our results, alongside those of recent observational studies, strongly suggest that maintaining high α‐diversity in plant communities is important for conserving multiple components of arthropod diversity. As arthropods carry out a range of essential ecosystem functions, such as pollination and natural pest‐control, our findings provide crucial insight for effective planning of human‐dominated landscapes to maximize both ecological and economic benefits in grassland systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=144335117
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/ecy.3057
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Contrast effect
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Arthropod diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Species diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Plant diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grasslands
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Plant communities
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Contrasting effects of plant diversity on β‐ and γ‐diversity of grassland invertebrates.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ebeling, A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lind, E. W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meyer, S. T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Barnes, A. D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Borer, E. T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eisenhauer, N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weisser, W. W.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Text: Jul2020
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00129658
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 101
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Ecology
              Type: main
ResultId 1