Explaining ecosystem multifunction with evolutionary models

Ecosystem function is the outcome of species interactions, traits, and niche overlap – all of which are influenced by evolution. However, it is not well understood how the tempo and mode of niche evolution can influence ecosystem function. In evolutionary models where either species differences accumulate through random drift in a single trait or species differences accumulate through divergent selection among close relatives, we should expect that ecosystem function is strongly related to diversity. However, when strong selection causes species to converge on specific niches or when novel traits that directly affect function evolve in some clades but not others, the relationship between diversity and ecosystem function might not be very strong. We test these ideas using a field experiment that established plant mixtures with differing phylogenetic diversities and we measured ten different community functions. We show that some functions were strongly predicted by species richness and mean pairwise phylogenetic distance (MPD, a measure of phylogenetic diversity), including biomass production and the reduction of herbivore and pathogen damage in polyculture, while other functions had weaker (litter production and structural complexity) or nonsignificant relationships (e.g., flower production and arthropod abundance) with MPD and richness. However, these divergent results can be explained by different models of niche evolution. These results show that diversity‐ecosystem function relationships are the product of evolution, but that the nature of how evolution influences ecosystem function is complex

Herbivory and nutrients shape grassland soil seed banks

Anthropogenic nutrient enrichment and shifts in herbivory can lead to dramatic changes in the composition and diversity of aboveground plant communities. In turn, this can alter seed banks in the soil, which are cryptic reservoirs of plant diversity. Here, we use data from seven Nutrient Network grassland sites on four continents, encompassing a range of climatic and environmental conditions, to test the joint effects of fertilization and aboveground mammalian herbivory on seed banks and on the similarity between aboveground plant communities and seed banks. We find that fertilization decreases plant species richness and diversity in seed banks, and homogenizes composition between aboveground and seed bank communities. Fertilization increases seed bank abundance especially in the presence of herbivores, while this effect is smaller in the absence of herbivores. Our findings highlight that nutrient enrichment can weaken a diversity maintaining mechanism in grasslands, and that herbivory needs to be considered when assessing nutrient enrichment effects on seed bank abundance.EEA Santa CruzFil: Eskelinen, Anu. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. Department of Physiological Diversity; AlemaniaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. University of Oulu. Ecology & Genetics; FinlandiaFil: Jessen, Maria Theresa. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research. Department of Physiological Diversity; AlemaniaFil: Jessen, Maria Theresa. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Jessen, Maria Theresa. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Department of Community Ecology; AlemaniaFil: Bahamonde, Hector Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales; Argentina.Fil: Bakker, Jonathan D. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Caldeira, Maria C. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. Associate Laboratory TERRA. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Harpole, William Stanley. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv); AlemaniaFil: Harpole, William Stanley. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Department of Community Ecology; AlemaniaFil: Harpole, William Stanley. Martin Luther University. Institute of Biology; AlemaniaFil: Jia, Meiyu. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Jia, Meiyu. East China University of Technology. School of Water Resources & Environmental Engineering; China.Fil: Jia, Meiyu. Beijing Normal University. College of Life Sciences; China.Fil: Lannes, Luciola S. São Paulo State University-UNESP. Department of Biology and Animal Sciences; Brasil.Fil: Nogueira, Carla. University of Lisbon. Forest Research Centre. Associate Laboratory TERRA. School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Venterink, Harry Olde. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). Department of Biology; BélgicaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Porath-Krause, Anita J. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric William. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Schroeder, Katie. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior; Estados UnidosFil: Schroeder, Katie. University of Georgia. Odum School of Ecology; Estados UnidosFil: Tognetti, Pedro M. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina.Fil: Tognetti, Pedro M. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA); Argentina.Fil: Tognetti, Pedro M. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL; SuizaFil: Yasui, Simone-Louise E. Queensland University of Technology. School of Biological and Environmental Sciences; Australia.Fil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu. Ecology & Genetics; FinlandiaFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. University of Missouri. Division of Biological Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. Michigan State University. Department of Plant Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. Michigan State University. W. K. Kellogg Biological Station; Estados UnidosFil: Sullivan, Lauren L. Michigan State University. Ecology, Evolution and Behavior Program; Estados Unido

The Green Roof Microbiome: Improving Plant Survival for Ecosystem Service Delivery

Plants are key contributors to ecosystem services delivered by green roofs in cities including stormwater capture, temperature regulation, and wildlife habitat. As a result, current research has primarily focused on their growth in relationship to extensive green roof (e.g., substrates <15 cm depth) ecosystem services. Green roofs are exposed to a variety of harsh abiotic factors such as intense solar radiation, wind, and isolation from ground-level habitats, making survival exceedingly difficult. Plants in natural habitats benefit from a variety of interactions with fungi and bacteria. These plant-microbial interactions improve mechanisms of survival and productivity; however, many green roof substrates are sterilized prior to installation and lack microbial communities with unstudied consequences for green roof plant health and subsequent survival and performance. In this paper, we present six hypotheses on the positive role of microbes in green roof applications. In natural and experimental systems, microbial interactions have been linked to plant (1) drought tolerance, (2) pathogen protection, (3) nutrient availability, (4) salt tolerance, (5) phytohormone production, and (6) substrate stabilization, all of which are desirable properties of green roof ecosystems. As few studies exist that directly examine these relationships on green roofs, we explore the existing ecological literature on these topics to unravel the mechanisms that could support more complex green roof ecosystem and lead to new insight into the design, performance, and broader applications in green infrastructure

Herbivory and nutrients shape grassland soil seed banks

Abstract Anthropogenic nutrient enrichment and shifts in herbivory can lead to dramatic changes in the composition and diversity of aboveground plant communities. In turn, this can alter seed banks in the soil, which are cryptic reservoirs of plant diversity. Here, we use data from seven Nutrient Network grassland sites on four continents, encompassing a range of climatic and environmental conditions, to test the joint effects of fertilization and aboveground mammalian herbivory on seed banks and on the similarity between aboveground plant communities and seed banks. We find that fertilization decreases plant species richness and diversity in seed banks, and homogenizes composition between aboveground and seed bank communities. Fertilization increases seed bank abundance especially in the presence of herbivores, while this effect is smaller in the absence of herbivores. Our findings highlight that nutrient enrichment can weaken a diversity maintaining mechanism in grasslands, and that herbivory needs to be considered when assessing nutrient enrichment effects on seed bank abundance

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present