Plant diversity maintains multiple soil functions in future environments

  1. Nico Eisenhauer  Is a corresponding author
  2. Jes Hines
  3. Forest Isbell
  4. Fons van der Plas
  5. Sarah E Hobbie
  6. Clare E Kazanski
  7. Annika Lehmann
  8. Mengyun Liu
  9. Alfred Lochner
  10. Matthias C Rillig
  11. Anja Vogel
  12. Kally Worm
  13. Peter B Reich
  1. Leipzig University, Germany
  2. University of Minnesota, United States
  3. Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Abstract

Biodiversity increases ecosystem functions underpinning a suite of services valued by society, including services provided by soils. To test whether, and how, future environments alter the relationship between biodiversity and multiple ecosystem functions, we measured grassland plant diversity effects on single soil functions and ecosystem multifunctionality, and compared relationships in four environments: ambient conditions, elevated atmospheric CO2, enriched N supply, and elevated CO2 and N in combination. Our results showed that plant diversity increased three out of four soil functions and, consequently, ecosystem multifunctionality. Remarkably, biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships were similarly significant under current and future environmental conditions, yet weaker with enriched N supply. Structural equation models revealed that plant diversity enhanced ecosystem multifunctionality by increasing plant community functional diversity, and the even provision of multiple functions. Conserving local plant diversity is therefore a robust strategy to maintain multiple valuable ecosystem services in both present and future environmental conditions.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are available in Supplementary File 3.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nico Eisenhauer

    German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
    For correspondence
    nico.eisenhauer@idiv.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0371-6720
  2. Jes Hines

    German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Forest Isbell

    Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fons van der Plas

    Department of Systematic Botany and Functional Biodiversity, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sarah E Hobbie

    Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Clare E Kazanski

    Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7432-5666
  7. Annika Lehmann

    Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mengyun Liu

    Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Management of Degraded Ecosystems, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Alfred Lochner

    German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Matthias C Rillig

    Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Anja Vogel

    German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Kally Worm

    Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Peter B Reich

    Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Ei 862/2; FZT 118)

  • Nico Eisenhauer
  • Jes Hines
  • Alfred Lochner

European Research Council (ERC award no 677232)

  • Nico Eisenhauer

National Science Foundation (DEB-1234162)

  • Peter B Reich

National Science Foundation (DEB-1120064)

  • Peter B Reich

National Science Foundation (DEB-1242531)

  • Peter B Reich

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2018, Eisenhauer et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,688
    views
  • 805
    downloads
  • 74
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Nico Eisenhauer
  2. Jes Hines
  3. Forest Isbell
  4. Fons van der Plas
  5. Sarah E Hobbie
  6. Clare E Kazanski
  7. Annika Lehmann
  8. Mengyun Liu
  9. Alfred Lochner
  10. Matthias C Rillig
  11. Anja Vogel
  12. Kally Worm
  13. Peter B Reich
(2018)
Plant diversity maintains multiple soil functions in future environments
eLife 7:e41228.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.41228

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.41228

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    Itai Bloch, David Troupin ... Nir Sapir
    Research Article

    Optimal foraging theory posits that foragers adjust their movements based on prey abundance to optimize food intake. While extensively studied in terrestrial and marine environments, aerial foraging has remained relatively unexplored due to technological limitations. This study, uniquely combining BirdScan-MR1 radar and the Advanced Tracking and Localization of Animals in Real-Life Systems biotelemetry system, investigates the foraging dynamics of Little Swifts (Apus affinis) in response to insect movements over Israel’s Hula Valley. Insect movement traffic rate (MoTR) substantially varied across days, strongly influencing swift movement. On days with high MoTR, swifts exhibited reduced flight distance, increased colony visit rate, and earlier arrivals at the breeding colony, reflecting a dynamic response to prey availability. However, no significant effects were observed in total foraging duration, flight speed, or daily route length. Notably, as insect abundance increased, inter-individual distances decreased. These findings suggest that Little Swifts optimize their foraging behavior in relation to aerial insect abundance, likely influencing reproductive success and population dynamics. The integration of radar technology and biotelemetry systems provides a unique perspective on the interactions between aerial insectivores and their prey, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of optimal foraging strategies in diverse environments.

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Rebecca D Tarvin, Jeffrey L Coleman ... Richard W Fitch
    Research Article

    Understanding the origins of novel, complex phenotypes is a major goal in evolutionary biology. Poison frogs of the family Dendrobatidae have evolved the novel ability to acquire alkaloids from their diet for chemical defense at least three times. However, taxon sampling for alkaloids has been biased towards colorful species, without similar attention paid to inconspicuous ones that are often assumed to be undefended. As a result, our understanding of how chemical defense evolved in this group is incomplete. Here, we provide new data showing that, in contrast to previous studies, species from each undefended poison frog clade have measurable yet low amounts of alkaloids. We confirm that undefended dendrobatids regularly consume mites and ants, which are known sources of alkaloids. Thus, our data suggest that diet is insufficient to explain the defended phenotype. Our data support the existence of a phenotypic intermediate between toxin consumption and sequestration — passive accumulation — that differs from sequestration in that it involves no derived forms of transport and storage mechanisms yet results in low levels of toxin accumulation. We discuss the concept of passive accumulation and its potential role in the origin of chemical defenses in poison frogs and other toxin-sequestering organisms. In light of ideas from pharmacokinetics, we incorporate new and old data from poison frogs into an evolutionary model that could help explain the origins of acquired chemical defenses in animals and provide insight into the molecular processes that govern the fate of ingested toxins.