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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bernhard Schmid, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Version history

  1. Received: August 18, 2018
  2. Accepted: November 27, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 28, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 17, 2018 (version 2)

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

  • 4,324
    views
  • 749
    downloads
  • 54
    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
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Théo Constant, F Stephen Dobson ... Sylvain Giroud
    Research Article

    Seasonal animal dormancy is widely interpreted as a physiological response for surviving energetic challenges during the harshest times of the year (the physiological constraint hypothesis). However, there are other mutually non-exclusive hypotheses to explain the timing of animal dormancy, that is, entry into and emergence from hibernation (i.e. dormancy phenology). Survival advantages of dormancy that have been proposed are reduced risks of predation and competition (the ‘life-history’ hypothesis), but comparative tests across animal species are few. Using the phylogenetic comparative method applied to more than 20 hibernating mammalian species, we found support for both hypotheses as explanations for the phenology of dormancy. In accordance with the life-history hypotheses, sex differences in hibernation emergence and immergence were favored by the sex difference in reproductive effort. In addition, physiological constraint may influence the trade-off between survival and reproduction such that low temperatures and precipitation, as well as smaller body mass, influence sex differences in phenology. We also compiled initial evidence that ectotherm dormancy may be (1) less temperature dependent than previously thought and (2) associated with trade-offs consistent with the life-history hypothesis. Thus, dormancy during non-life-threatening periods that are unfavorable for reproduction may be more widespread than previously thought.

    1. Ecology
    Ari Grele, Tara J Massad ... Lora A Richards
    Research Article

    Declines in biodiversity generated by anthropogenic stressors at both species and population levels can alter emergent processes instrumental to ecosystem function and resilience. As such, understanding the role of biodiversity in ecosystem function and its response to climate perturbation is increasingly important, especially in tropical systems where responses to changes in biodiversity are less predictable and more challenging to assess experimentally. Using large-scale transplant experiments conducted at five neotropical sites, we documented the impacts of changes in intraspecific and interspecific plant richness in the genus Piper on insect herbivory, insect richness, and ecosystem resilience to perturbations in water availability. We found that reductions of both intraspecific and interspecific Piper diversity had measurable and site-specific effects on herbivory, herbivorous insect richness, and plant mortality. The responses of these ecosystem-relevant processes to reduced intraspecific Piper richness were often similar in magnitude to the effects of reduced interspecific richness. Increased water availability reduced herbivory by 4.2% overall, and the response of herbivorous insect richness and herbivory to water availability were altered by both intra- and interspecific richness in a site-dependent manner. Our results underscore the role of intraspecific and interspecific richness as foundations of ecosystem function and the importance of community and location-specific contingencies in controlling function in complex tropical systems.