This phylogenetic tree of life was created by David Hillis, Derreck Zwickil and Robin Gutell. It depicts the evolutionary relationships of about 3,000 species throughout the Tree of Life. Less than 1 percent of all the known species. Download the pdf from the Hillis Lab. |
It has been established that the current rate of species extinction has far outpaced those rates we see in the fossil record. By "far outpaced," we're talking about a sixth mass extinction within 240 years (that's the projection as of now at least). There have been hundreds of experiments that have tackled this question of biodiversity and ecosystem processes, particularly in plant systems. Take a big statistical spoon and mix all the experiments together and you find that the loss of plant biodiversity affects biomass production and decomposition. Experiments to manipulate biodiversity in controlled environments have actually found that biodiversity can act as an independent variable that directly controls such ecosystem functions as nutrient cycling and biomass production. Studies have shown that greater biodiversity also increases these effects over time, likely by either a saturating response curve (large increases in ecosystem functioning as species are added to communities, leveling off after a while, with any additional species only increasing ecosystem functioning by small amounts) or a linear response curve (think: straight[er] line). These temporal aspects of diversity-productivity relationships are still somewhat obscure, particularly the mechanisms of these changes over time. Now add global climate change. It is uncertain the sizes these effects will be and how the direct effects of other types of environmental change (like atmospheric composition, nutrient pollution, etc.) will affect ecosystem functioning.
So far the month of May has yielded some big, interesting papers on the impacts of biodiversity loss. A paper by Peter Reich et al. in Science takes a look at the time component of biodiversity loss and how it affects the growth curves I mentioned above. In this paper, the authors present data from two long-running (≥13 years) grassland biodiversity experiments at the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Cedar Creek Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in Minnesota, USA: the “Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment” (BioDIV), planted in 1994–1995, and the “Biodiversity, CO2, and N Experiment” (BioCON), planted in 1997. At these sites a number of plots are planted with different numbers of species of plants including various C3 and C4 plants and nitrogen (N)-fixing and non-fixing dicotyledonous herbs. The authors looked at the effects of diversity on biomass productivity and found that productivity (aboveground and belowground) increased and became less saturating over time; the diversity-productivity relationship became more linear and less strongly decelerating over time. Their evidence suggests that this may be due to the accumulating effects of complementary resource acquisitions and use and such ecosystem feedback effects as soil N cycling. Basically, the plants are complementing each other, increasing the functional diversity of the system. The greater the diversity of plants the more natural components (carbon, water, etc.) of the system can be capitalized on over time, a result that short-term experiments may underestimate.
The Cedar Creek LTER site (Credit: David Tilman, UMN) |
Figure from Cardinale (2012) |
I hope I've made my point that biodiversity = good, extinction = bad, and climate change = worse. I also hope I (and these authors) made the case that the loss of biodiversity isn't just a consequence but rather a major driver in key processes that affect our planet. Think about it.
You can read more in the articles:
Reich, P., Tilman, D., Isbell, F., Mueller, K., Hobbie, S., Flynn, D., & Eisenhauer, N. (2012). Impacts of Biodiversity Loss Escalate Through Time as Redundancy Fades Science, 336 (6081), 589-592 DOI: 10.1126/science.1217909
Cardinale, B. (2012). Impacts of Biodiversity Loss Science, 336 (6081), 552-553 DOI: 10.1126/science.1222102
Hooper, D., Adair, E., Cardinale, B., Byrnes, J., Hungate, B., Matulich, K., Gonzalez, A., Duffy, J., Gamfeldt, L., & O’Connor, M. (2012). A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature11118
Cardinale, B. (2011). Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning Nature, 472 (7341), 86-89 DOI: 10.1038/nature09904
And here are some additional write-ups:
NSF story "Ecosystem Effects of Biodiversity Loss Rival Climate Change and Pollution"
NSF story "Plant Diversity Is Key to Maintaining Productive Vegetation" also at Science Daily
And some related websites you may want to visit:
Cedar Creak LTER site
LTER Network
3 comments:
"biodiversity = good, extinction = bad, and climate change = worse"
I've been a passionate practicing geologist for two decades now, and I have yet to see decent evidence that we are in a mass extinction event today. We simply don't have sufficient evidence to support this claim, I think this is speculation, more like wishful thinking than reality.
So I say biodiversity = good, extinction = unknown, and climate change = normal.
I think that one of the good parts about these papers is that they used known extinction data, with only the one paper also running a version of their model with projections. Many of these extinction events are accepted as being the result of human disruption and/or habitat loss. The Reichs et al. paper is simply showing the advantages to a diverse system vs a less diverse one or a monoculture. I would argue that this is a pretty straight forward experiment with some very believable conclusions.
The Hooper et al. paper is probably the one you are arguing with most as it directly compares biodiversity loss to climate change. The objective of this paper is to gauge biodiversity's importance to the ecosystem rather than on commenting on climate change directly. The conclusions showing that the loss hurts ecosystems as much as other changes. The paper also goes through some interesting analyses on nutrient cycling, particularly nitrogen and additional nitrogen that humans are adding to the soil, that I left out of the post for time/length reasons. So maybe: biodiversity = good, extinction = unhelpful, and climate change = comparable.
I heard a really nice interview with Hooper on the Nature Podcast about his paper. In the podcast, Hooper addresses some of your arguments as well. I highly recommend downloading, especially since it's free.
Thanks for commenting!
I needed to thank you for this excellent read!
! I certainly loved every little bit of it. I have you
book-marked to look at new things you post…
My webpage :: continue Reading
Post a Comment