02352nas a2200433 4500008004100000245010300041210006900144300001100213490000700224520115300231100001701384700001501401700001601416700001601432700001301448700001801461700001501479700001901494700001401513700001701527700001701544700002001561700001801581700001601599700001601615700002001631700001801651700001801669700002801687700002101715700001901736700001901755700001401774700001601788700001801804700001901822700001501841856006201856 2015 eng d00aPlant diversity predicts beta but not alpha diversity of soil microbes across grasslands worldwide0 aPlant diversity predicts beta but not alpha diversity of soil mi a85 -950 v183 a
Aboveground–belowground interactions exert critical controls on the composition and function of terrestrial ecosystems, yet the fundamental relationships between plant diversity and soil microbial diversity remain elusive. Theory predicts predominantly positive associations but tests within single sites have shown variable relationships, and associations between plant and microbial diversity across broad spatial scales remain largely unexplored. We compared the diversity of plant, bacterial, archaeal and fungal communities in one hundred and forty-five 1 m2 plots across 25 temperate grassland sites from four continents. Across sites, the plant alpha diversity patterns were poorly related to those observed for any soil microbial group. However, plant beta diversity (compositional dissimilarity between sites) was significantly correlated with the beta diversity of bacterial and fungal communities, even after controlling for environmental factors. Thus, across a global range of temperate grasslands, plant diversity can predict patterns in the composition of soil microbial communities, but not patterns in alpha diversity.
1 aProber, S.M.1 aLeff, J.W.1 aBates, S.T.1 aBorer, E.T.1 aFirn, J.1 aHarpole, W.S.1 aLind, E.M.1 aSeabloom, E.W.1 aAdler, P.1 aBakker, J.D.1 aCleland, E.E1 aDeCrappeo, N.M.1 aDeLorenze, E.1 aHagenah, N.1 aHautier, Y.1 aHofmockel, K.S.1 aKirkman, K.P.1 aKnops, J.M.H.1 aLa Pierre, Kimberly, J.1 aMacDougall, A.S.1 aMcCulley, R.L.1 aMitchell, C.E.1 aRisch, A.1 aSchuetz, M.1 aStevens, C.J.1 aWilliams, R.J.1 aFierer, N. uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ele.1238101982nas a2200757 4500008004100000245008400041210006900125300001400194490000800208100001600216700001900232700001700251700001700268700001900285700001500304700001400319700001600333700001900349700001700368700002000385700002100405700001600426700001800442700001800460700001600478700001200494700001800506700001800524700001400542700001900556700001700575700002000592700001100612700001300623700001600636700001800652700001500670700002400685700002000709700001600729700001800745700002800763700001900791700001100810700002100821700001900842700002000861700001900881700002200900700001800922700002100940700001700961700001600978700001700994700001501011700001401026700001601040700001601056700001801072700001901090700001901109700001601128700001701144700001501161856004801176 2014 eng d00aHerbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation0 aHerbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via l a517 - 5200 v5081 aBorer, E.T.1 aSeabloom, E.W.1 aGruner, D.S.1 aHarpole, W.S1 aHillebrand, H.1 aLind, E.M.1 aAdler, P.1 aAlberti, J.1 aAnderson, T.M.1 aBakker, J.D.1 aBiederman, L.A.1 aBlumenthal, D.M.1 aBrown, C.S.1 aBrudvig, L.A.1 aBuckley, Y.M.1 aCadotte, M.1 aChu, C.1 aCleland, E.E.1 aCrawley, M.J.1 aDaleo, P.1 aDamschen, E.I.1 aDavies, K.F.1 aDeCrappeo, N.M.1 aDu, G.1 aFirn, J.1 aHautier, Y.1 aHeckman, R.W.1 aHector, A.1 aHilleRisLambers, J.1 aIribarne, Oscar1 aKlein, J.A.1 aKnops, J.M.H.1 aLa Pierre, Kimberly, J.1 aLeakey, A.D.B.1 aLi, W.1 aMacDougall, A.S.1 aMcCulley, R.L.1 aMelbourne, B.A.1 aMitchell, C.E.1 aMoore, Joslin, L.1 aMortensen, B.1 aO'Halloran, L.R.1 aOrrock, J.L.1 aPascual, J.1 aProber, S.M.1 aPyke, D.A.1 aRisch, A.1 aSchuetz, M.1 aSmith, M.D.1 aStevens, C.J.1 aSullivan, L.L.1 aWilliams, R.J.1 aWragg, P.D.1 aWright, J.P.1 aYang, L.H. uhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nature1314404613nas a2200985 4500008004100000245010500041210006900146300001600215490000700231520209700238100001902335700001602354700001602370700001802386700001502404700001302419700001802432700001602450700001302466700001902479700001702498700001702515700001402532700001602546700001902562700001702581700002002598700002102618700001602639700001802655700001702673700001202690700001802702700001402720700001902734700002002753700002002773700001802793700001102811700001402822700001502836700001702851700001602868700001502884700001302899700001902912700002002931700002002951700001702971700001402988700001203002700001803014700001603032700001803048700002803066700001503094700002003109700001903129700001103148700001103159700001703170700001803187700001903205700002203224700001703246700001803263700002103281700001603302700001503318700001503333700001403348700002303362700001703385700001603402700001703418700001603435700001603451700001703467700001703484700002003501700001603521700001503537700001303552856006203565 2013 eng d00aPredicting invasion in grassland ecosystems: is exotic dominance the real embarrassment of richness?0 aPredicting invasion in grassland ecosystems is exotic dominance a3677 - 36870 v193 aInvasions have increased the size of regional species pools, but are typically assumed to reduce native diversity. However, global-scale tests of this assumption have been elusive because of the focus on exotic species richness, rather than relative abundance. This is problematic because low invader richness can indicate invasion resistance by the native community or, alternatively, dominance by a single exotic species. Here, we used a globally replicated study to quantify relationships between exotic richness and abundance in grass-dominated ecosystems in 13 countries on six continents, ranging from salt marshes to alpine tundra. We tested effects of human land use, native community diversity, herbivore pressure, and nutrient limitation on exotic plant dominance. Despite its widespread use, exotic richness was a poor proxy for exotic dominance at low exotic richness, because sites that contained few exotic species ranged from relatively pristine (low exotic richness and cover) to almost completely exotic-dominated ones (low exotic richness but high exotic cover). Both exotic cover and richness were predicted by native plant diversity (native grass richness) and land use (distance to cultivation). Although climate was important for predicting both exotic cover and richness, climatic factors predicting cover (precipitation variability) differed from those predicting richness (maximum temperature and mean temperature in the wettest quarter). Herbivory and nutrient limitation did not predict exotic richness or cover. Exotic dominance was greatest in areas with low native grass richness at the site- or regional-scale. Although this could reflect native grass displacement, a lack of biotic resistance is a more likely explanation, given that grasses comprise the most aggressive invaders. These findings underscore the need to move beyond richness as a surrogate for the extent of invasion, because this metric confounds monodominance with invasion resistance. Monitoring species' relative abundance will more rapidly advance our understanding of invasions.
1 aSeabloom, E.W.1 aBorer, E.T.1 aBuckley, Y.1 aCleland, E.E.1 aDavies, K.1 aFirn, J.1 aHarpole, W.S.1 aHautier, Y.1 aLind, E.1 aMacDougall, A.1 aOrrock, J.L.1 aProber, S.M.1 aAdler, P.1 aAlberti, J.1 aAnderson, M.T.1 aBakker, J.D.1 aBiederman, L.A.1 aBlumenthal, D.M.1 aBrown, C.S.1 aBrudvig, L.A.1 aCaldeira, M.1 aChu, C.1 aCrawley, M.J.1 aDaleo, P.1 aDamschen, E.I.1 aD'Antonio, C.M.1 aDeCrappeo, N.M.1 aDickman, C.R.1 aDu, G.1 aFay, P.A.1 aFrater, P.1 aGruner, D.S.1 aHagenah, N.1 aHector, A.1 aHelm, A.1 aHillebrand, H.1 aHofmockel, K.S.1 aHumphries, H.C.1 aIribarne, O.1 aJin, V.L.1 aKay, A.1 aKirkman, K.P.1 aKlein, J.A.1 aKnops, J.M.H.1 aLa Pierre, Kimberly, J.1 aLadwig, L.1 aLambrinos, J.G.1 aLeakey, A.D.B.1 aLi, Q.1 aLi, W.1 aMcCulley, R.1 aMelbourne, B.1 aMitchell, C.E.1 aMoore, Joslin, L.1 aMorgan, J.W.1 aMortensen, B.1 aO'Halloran, L.R.1 aPärtel, M.1 aPascual, J1 aPyke, D.A.1 aRisch, A.1 aSalguero-Gomez, R.1 aSankaran, M.1 aSchuetz, M.1 aSimonsen, A.1 aSmith, M.D.1 aStevens, C.1 aSullivan, L.1 aWardle, G.M.1 aWolkovich, E.M.1 aWragg, P.D.1 aWright, J.1 aYang, L. uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.1237002630nas a2200637 4500008004100000245006300041210006300104300001500167490000800182520095600190100001401146700001901160700001601179700001901195700001601214700001501230700001801245700002101263700001601284700001901300700001701319700002001336700001601356700001801372700002001390700001401410700001801424700002401442700002101466700001801487700001901505700001701524700002001541700001401561700001301575700001501588700001801603700001701621700001601638700002401654700002001678700001401698700001201712700001801724700001601742700001801758700002801776700002001804700001101824700002101835700001901856700002001875700001901895700002201914856005601936 2011 eng d00aProductivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness0 aProductivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness a1750 -17530 v3333 aFor more than 30 years, the relationship between net primary productivity and species richness has generated intense debate in ecology about the processes regulating local diversity. The original view, which is still widely accepted, holds that the relationship is hump-shaped, with richness first rising and then declining with increasing productivity. Although recent meta-analyses questioned the generality of hump-shaped patterns, these syntheses have been criticized for failing to account for methodological differences among studies. We addressed such concerns by conducting standardized sampling in 48 herbaceous-dominated plant communities on five continents. We found no clear relationship between productivity and fine-scale (meters−2) richness within sites, within regions, or across the globe. Ecologists should focus on fresh, mechanistic approaches to understanding the multivariate links between productivity and richness.
1 aAdler, P.1 aSeabloom, E.W.1 aBorer, E.T.1 aHillebrand, H.1 aHautier, Y.1 aHector, A.1 aHarpole, W.S.1 aO'Halloran, L.R.1 aGrace, J.B.1 aAnderson, T.M.1 aBakker, J.D.1 aBiederman, L.A.1 aBrown, C.S.1 aBuckley, Y.M.1 aCalabrese, L.B.1 aChu, C.J.1 aCleland, E.E.1 aCollins, Scott., L.1 aCottingham, K.L.1 aCrawley, M.J.1 aDamschen, E.I.1 aDavies, K.F.1 aDeCrappeo, N.M.1 aFay, P.A.1 aFirn, J.1 aFrater, P.1 aGasarch, E.I.1 aGruner, D.S.1 aHagenah, N.1 aHilleRisLambers, J.1 aHumphries, H.C.1 aJin, V.L.1 aKay, A.1 aKirkman, K.P.1 aKlein, J.A.1 aKnops, J.M.H.1 aLa Pierre, Kimberly, J.1 aLambrinos, J.G.1 aLi, W.1 aMacDougall, A.S.1 aMcCulley, R.L.1 aMelbourne, B.A.1 aMitchell, C.E.1 aMoore, Joslin, L. uhttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6050/1750