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

  • 4,469
    views
  • 778
    downloads
  • 66
    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
    Mathilde Delacoux, Fumihiro Kano
    Research Article

    During collective vigilance, it is commonly assumed that individual animals compromise their feeding time to be vigilant against predators, benefiting the entire group. One notable issue with this assumption concerns the unclear nature of predator ‘detection’, particularly in terms of vision. It remains uncertain how a vigilant individual utilizes its high-acuity vision (such as the fovea) to detect a predator cue and subsequently guide individual and collective escape responses. Using fine-scale motion-capture technologies, we tracked the head and body orientations of pigeons (hence reconstructed their visual fields and foveal projections) foraging in a flock during simulated predator attacks. Pigeons used their fovea to inspect predator cues. Earlier foveation on a predator cue was linked to preceding behaviors related to vigilance and feeding, such as head-up or down positions, head-scanning, and food-pecking. Moreover, earlier foveation predicted earlier evasion flights at both the individual and collective levels. However, we also found that relatively long delay between their foveation and escape responses in individuals obscured the relationship between these two responses. While our results largely support the existing assumptions about vigilance, they also underscore the importance of considering vision and addressing the disparity between detection and escape responses in future research.

    1. Ecology
    Elham Nourani, Louise Faure ... Kamran Safi
    Research Article

    The heterogeneity of the physical environment determines the cost of transport for animals, shaping their energy landscape. Animals respond to this energy landscape by adjusting their distribution and movement to maximize gains and reduce costs. Much of our knowledge about energy landscape dynamics focuses on factors external to the animal, particularly the spatio-temporal variations of the environment. However, an animal’s internal state can significantly impact its ability to perceive and utilize available energy, creating a distinction between the ‘fundamental’ and the ‘realized’ energy landscapes. Here, we show that the realized energy landscape varies along the ontogenetic axis. Locomotor and cognitive capabilities of individuals change over time, especially during the early life stages. We investigate the development of the realized energy landscape in the Central European Alpine population of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos, a large predator that requires negotiating the atmospheric environment to achieve energy-efficient soaring flight. We quantified weekly energy landscapes using environmental features for 55 juvenile golden eagles, demonstrating that energetic costs of traversing the landscape decreased with age. Consequently, the potentially flyable area within the Alpine region increased 2170-fold during their first three years of independence. Our work contributes to a predictive understanding of animal movement by presenting ontogeny as a mechanism shaping the realized energy landscape.