Search

© 2020 The Authors., Fire is a powerful ecological and evolutionary force that regulates organismal traits, population sizes, species interactions, community composition, carbon and nutrient cycling and ecosystem function. It also presents a rapidly growing societal challenge, due to both increasingly destructive wildfires and fire exclusion in fire‐dependent ecosystems. As an ecological process, fire integrates complex feedbacks among biological, social and geophysical processes, requiring coordination across several fields and scales of study. Here, we describe the diversity of ways in which fire operates as a fundamental ecological and evolutionary process on Earth. We explore research priorities in six categories of fire ecology: (a) characteristics of fire regimes, (b) changing fire regimes, (c) fire effects on above‐ground ecology, (d) fire effects on below‐ground ecology, (e) fire behaviour and (f) fire ecology modelling. We identify three emergent themes: the need to study fire across temporal scales, to assess the mechanisms underlying a variety of ecological feedbacks involving fire and to improve representation of fire in a range of modelling contexts. Synthesis: As fire regimes and our relationships with fire continue to change, prioritizing these research areas will facilitate understanding of the ecological causes and consequences of future fires and rethinking fire management alternatives., Support was provided by NSF‐DEB‐1743681 to K.K.M. and A.J.T. We thank Shalin Hai‐Jew for helpful discussion of the survey and qualitative methods.

Globally, extreme droughts are likely to become more frequent, more intense, and longer in duration with climate change. Understanding the impacts of drought on ecosystem function (i.e., resistance) and its recovery after drought (i.e., resilience) is critical for long-term sustainability of ecosystem services under climate change. We tested the effects of drought duration on ecosystem resistance by imposing four years of extreme drought (

SummaryProcess-based vegetation models attempt to represent the wide range of trait variation in biomes by grouping ecologically similar species into plant functional types (PFTs). This approach has been successful in representing many aspects of plant physiology and biophysics, but struggles to capture biogeographic history and ecological dynamics that determine biome boundaries and plant distributions. Grass dominated ecosystems are broadly distributed across all vegetated continents and harbor large functional diversity, yet most Earth System Models (ESMs) summarize grasses into two generic PFTs based primarily on differences between temperate C3grasses and (sub)tropical C4grasses. Incorporation of species-level trait variation is an active area of research to enhance the ecological realism of PFTs, which form the basis for vegetation processes and dynamics in ESMs. Using reported measurements, we developed grass functional trait values (physiological, structural, biochemical, anatomical, phenological, and disturbance-related) of dominant lineages to improve ESM representations. Our method is fundamentally different from previous efforts, as it uses phylogenetic relatedness to create lineage-based functional types (LFTs), situated between species-level trait data and PFT-level abstractions, thus providing a realistic representation of functional diversity and opening the door to the development of new vegetation models.

Univariate and multivariate methods are commonly used to explore the spatial and temporal dynamics of ecological communities, but each has limitations, including oversimplification or abstraction of communities. Rank abundance curves (RACs) potentially integrate these existing methodologies by detailing species‐level community changes. Here, we had three goals: first, to simplify analysis of community dynamics by developing a coordinated set of R functions, and second, to demystify the relationships among univariate, multivariate, and RACs measures, and examine how each is influenced by the community parameters as well as data collection methods. We developed new functions for studying temporal changes and spatial differences in RACs in an update to the R package library(“codyn”), alongside other new functions to calculate univariate and multivariate measures of community dynamics. We also developed a new approach to studying changes in the shape of RAC curves. The R package update presented here increases the accessibility of univariate and multivariate measures of community change over time and difference over space. Next, we use simulated and real data to assess the RAC and multivariate measures that are output from our new functions, studying (1) if they are influenced by species richness and evenness, temporal turnover, and spatial variability and (2) how the measures are related to each other. Lastly, we explore the use of the measures with an example from a long‐term nutrient addition experiment. We find that the RAC and multivariate measures are not sensitive to species richness and evenness and that all the measures detail unique aspects of temporal change or spatial differences. We also find that species reordering is the strongest correlate of a multivariate measure of compositional change and explains most community change observed in long‐term nutrient addition experiment. Overall, we show that species reordering is potentially an understudied determinant of community changes over time or differences between treatments. The functions developed here should enhance the use of RACs to further explore the dynamics of ecological communities.

Fil: Komatsu, Kimberly J. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater. United States. Fil: Avolio, Meghan L. Johns Hopkins University. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Baltimore, United States. Fil: Lemoine, Nathan P. Marquette University. Department of Biological Sciences. Milwaukee, United States. Fil: Chaneton, Enrique José. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fil: Chaneton, Enrique José. CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fil: Tognetti, Pedro Maximiliano.Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fil: Tognetti, Pedro Maximiliano.CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fil: Yahdjian, María Laura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fil: Yahdjian, María Laura. CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. Fil: Isbell, Forest. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. Saint Paul, United States. Fil: Grman, Emily. Eastern Michigan University. Department of Biology. Ypsilanti, United States. Global change drivers (GCDs) are expected to alter community structure and consequently, the services that ecosystems provide. Yet, few experimental investigations have examined effects of CDs on plant community structure across multiple ecosystem types, and those that do exist present conflicting patterns. In an unprecedented global synthesis of over 100 experiments that manipulated factors linked to GCDs, we show that herbaceous plant community responses depend on experimental manipulation length and number of factors manipulated. We found that plant communities are fairly resistant to experimentally manipulated GCDs in the short term ( minor to 10 y). In contrast, long-term (major or equal to 10 y) experiments show increasing community divergence of treatments from control conditions. Surprisingly, these community responses occurred with similar frequency across the GCD types manipulated in our database. However, community responses were more common when 3 or more GCDs were simultaneously manipulated, suggesting the emergence of additive or synergistic effects of multiple drivers, particularly over long time periods. In half of the cases, GCD manipulations caused a difference in community composition without a corresponding species richness difference, indicating that species reordering or replacement is an important mechanism of community responses to GCDs and should be given greater consideration when examining consequences of GCDs for the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship. Human activities are currently driving unparalleled global changes worldwide. Our analyses provide the most comprehensive evidence to date that these human activities may have widespread impacts on plant community composition globally, which will increase in frequency over time and be greater in areas where communities face multiple GCDs simultaneously. tbls., grafs.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-20997-9.

This article is a response to Korell et al., 26, 325–327; See also the Commentary on this article by Muller et al., 26, e4–e5; See also the response to this Letter to the Editor by Korell et al., 26, 328–329.

Herbivores alter plant biodiversity (species richness) in many of the world’s ecosystems, but the magnitude and the direction of herbivore effects on biodiversity vary widely within and among ecosystems. One current theory predicts that herbivores enhance plant biodiversity at high productivity but have the opposite effect at low productivity. Yet, empirical support for the importance of site productivity as a mediator of these herbivore impacts is equivocal. Here, we synthesize data from 252 large-herbivore exclusion studies, spanning a 20-fold range in site productivity, to test an alternative hypothesis—that herbivore-induced changes in the competitive environment determine the response of plant biodiversity to herbivory irrespective of productivity. Under this hypothesis, when herbivores reduce the abundance (biomass, cover) of dominant species (for example, because the dominant plant is palatable), additional resources become available to support new species, thereby increasing biodiversity. By contrast, if herbivores promote high dominance by increasing the abundance of herbivory-resistant, unpalatable species, then resource availability for other species decreases reducing biodiversity. We show that herbivore-induced change in dominance, independent of site productivity or precipitation (a proxy for productivity), is the best predictor of herbivore effects on biodiversity in grassland and savannah sites. Given that most herbaceous ecosystems are dominated by one or a few species, altering the competitive environment via herbivores or by other means may be an effective strategy for conserving biodiversity in grasslands and savannahs globally. Fil: Koerner, Sally E.. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Department of Biology; Estados Unidos Fil: Smith, Melinda D.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: Burkepile, Deron E.. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Hanan, Niall P.. New Mexico State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Avolio, Meghan L.. University Johns Hopkins; Estados Unidos Fil: Collins, Scott L.. University of New Mexico; Estados Unidos Fil: Knapp, Alan K.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: Lemoine, Nathan P.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: Forrestel, Elisabeth J.. University of California at Davis; Estados Unidos Fil: Eby, Stephanie. Northeastern University; Estados Unidos Fil: Thompson, Dave I.. University of the Witwatersrand; Sudáfrica. Kruger National Park. South African Environmental Observation Network. Ndlovu Node. Scientific Services; Sudáfrica Fil: Aguado-Santacruz, Gerardo A.. Tecnológico Nacional de México; México Fil: Anderson, John P.. New Mexico State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Anderson, T. Michael. University Wake Forest; Estados Unidos Fil: Angassa, Ayana. Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources; Sudáfrica. Hawassa University; Etiopía Fil: Bagchi, Sumanta. Indian Institute of Science; India Fil: Bakker, Elisabeth S.. Netherlands Institute of Ecology; Países Bajos Fil: Bastin, Gary. Alice Springs; Australia Fil: Baur, Lauren E.. University of New Mexico; Estados Unidos Fil: Beard, Karen H.. State University of Utah; Estados Unidos Fil: Beever, Erik A.. United States Geological Survey; Estados Unidos. State University of Montana; Estados Unidos Fil: Bohlen, Patrick J.. University of Central Florida; Estados Unidos Fil: Boughton, Elizabeth H.. MacArthur Agroecology Research Center; Estados Unidos Fil: Canestro, Don. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Cesa, Ariela. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires; Argentina Fil: Chaneton, Enrique Jose. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; Argentina Fil: Cheng, Jimin. Northwest A&F University; China Fil: D?Antonio, Carla M.. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Deleglise, Claire. Université Grenoble Alpes; Francia Fil: Dembélé, Fadiala. Institut de Formation et de Recherche Appliquee; Sudáfrica Fil: Dorrough, Josh. Ecosystem Mangement Science; Austria Fil: Eldridge, David J.. University of New South Wales; Australia Fil: Fernandez Going, Barbara. University of Texas at Austin; Estados Unidos Fil: Fernández Lugo, Silvia. Universidad de La Laguna; España Fil: Fraser, Lauchlan H.. Thompson Rivers University; Canadá Fil: Freedman, Bill. Dalhousie University Halifax; Canadá Fil: García Salgado, Gonzalo. Dalhousie University Halifax; Canadá Fil: Goheen, Jacob R.. University of Wyoming; Estados Unidos Fil: Guo, Liang. Northwest A&F University; China Fil: Husheer, Sean. New Zealand Forest Surveys; Nueva Zelanda Fil: Karembé, Moussa. Université des Sciences; Malí Fil: Knops, Johannes M. H.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados Unidos Fil: Kraaij, Tineke. Nelson Mandela University; Sudáfrica Fil: Kulmatiski, Andrew. State University of Utah; Estados Unidos Fil: Kytöviita, Minna Maarit. Universidad de Jyvaskyla; Finlandia Fil: Lezama, Felipe. Universidad de la República; Uruguay Fil: Loucougaray, Gregory. Université Grenoble Alpes; Francia Fil: Loydi, Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida; Argentina Fil: Milchunas, Dan G.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: Milton, Suzanne J.. South African Environmental Observation Network; Sudáfrica Fil: Morgan, John W.. La Trobe University; Australia Fil: Moxham, Claire. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research; Australia Fil: Nehring, Kyle C.. State University of Utah; Estados Unidos Fil: Olff, Han. University of Groningen; Países Bajos Fil: Palmer, Todd M.. University of Florida; Estados Unidos Fil: Rebollo, Salvador. Universidad de Alcalá; España Fil: Riginos, Corinna. The Nature Conservancy; Estados Unidos Fil: Risch, Anita C.. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; Suiza Fil: Rueda, Marta. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; España Fil: Sankaran, Mahesh. National Centre For Biological Sciences; India. University of Leeds; Reino Unido Fil: Sasaki, Takehiro. Yokohama National University; Japón Fil: Schoenecker, Kathryn A.. Fort Collins Science Center and Colorado State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Schultz, Nick L.. Federation University; Australia Fil: Schütz, Martin. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; Suiza Fil: Schwabe, Angelika. Universitat Technische Darmstadt; Alemania Fil: Siebert, Frances. North West University; Sudáfrica Fil: Smit, Christian. University of Groningen; Países Bajos Fil: Stahlheber, Karen A.. University of Wisconsin Green Bay; Estados Unidos Fil: Storm, Christian. Universitat Technische Darmstadt; Alemania Fil: Strong, Dustin J.. United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Research Service; Estados Unidos Fil: Su, Jishuai. Northwest A&F University; China Fil: Tiruvaimozhi, Yadugiri V.. National Centre for Biological Sciences; India Fil: Tyler, Claudia. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Val, James. Office of Environment and Heritage; Australia Fil: Vandegehuchte, Martijn L.. University of Ghent; Bélgica. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; Suiza Fil: Veblen, Kari E.. State University of Utah; Estados Unidos Fil: Vermeire, Lance T.. United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Research Service; Estados Unidos Fil: Ward, David. Kent State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Wu, Jianshuang. Lhasa National Ecological Research Station; China Fil: Young, Truman P.. University of California at Davis; Estados Unidos. Mpala Research Centre; Kenia Fil: Yu, Qiang. Chinese Academy Of Agricultural Sciences; China. Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning; China Fil: Zelikova, Tamara Jane. University Of Wyoming; . University of Wyoming; Estados Unidos

Extremes in climate may severely impact ecosystem structure and function, with both the magnitude and rate of response differing among ecosystem types and processes. We conducted a modeling analysis of the effects of extreme drought on two key ecosystem processes, production and respiration, and, to provide a broader context, we complemented this with a synthesis of published results that cover a wide variety of ecosystems. The synthesis indicated that across a broad range of biomes, gross primary production (GPP) was generally more sensitive to extreme drought (defined as proportional reduction relative to average rainfall periods) than was ecosystem respiration (ER). Furthermore, this differential sensitivity between production and respiration increased as drought severity increased; it occurred only in grassland ecosystems, and not in evergreen needle-leaf and broad-leaf forests or woody savannahs. The modeling analysis was designed to enable a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying this pattern, and focused on four grassland sites arrayed across the Great Plains, USA. Model results consistently showed that net primary productivity (NPP) was reduced more than heterotrophic respiration (Rh) by extreme drought (i.e., 67% reduction in annual ambient rainfall) at all four study sites. The sensitivity of NPP to drought was directly attributable to rainfall amount, whereas the sensitivity of Rh to drought was driven by soil drying, reduced carbon (C) input and a drought-induced reduction in soil C content – a much slower process. However, differences in reductions in NPP and Rh diminished as extreme drought continued, due to a gradual decline in the soil C pool leading to further reductions in Rh. We also varied the way in which drought was imposed in the modeling analysis; it was either imposed by simulating reductions in rainfall event size (ESR) or by reducing rainfall event number (REN). Modeled NPP and Rh decreased more by ESR than REN at the two relatively mesic sites but less so at the two xeric sites. Our findings suggest that responses of production and respiration differ in magnitude, occur on different timescales, and are affected by different mechanisms under extreme, prolonged drought.

Field measurements of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) in temperate grasslands suggest that both positive and negative asymmetric responses to changes in precipitation (P) may occur. Under normal range of precipitation variability, wet years typically result in ANPP gains being larger than ANPP declines in dry years (positive asymmetry), whereas increases in ANPP are lower in magnitude in extreme wet years compared to reductions during extreme drought (negative asymmetry). Whether the current generation of ecosystem models with a coupled carbon–water system in grasslands are capable of simulating these asymmetric ANPP responses is an unresolved question. In this study, we evaluated the simulated responses of temperate grassland primary productivity to scenarios of altered precipitation with 14 ecosystem models at three sites: Shortgrass steppe (SGS), Konza Prairie (KNZ) and Stubai Valley meadow (STU), spanning a rainfall gradient from dry to moist. We found that (1) the spatial slopes derived from modeled primary productivity and precipitation across sites were steeper than the temporal slopes obtained from inter-annual variations, which was consistent with empirical data; (2) the asymmetry of the responses of modeled primary productivity under normal inter-annual precipitation variability differed among models, and the mean of the model ensemble suggested a negative asymmetry across the three sites, which was contrary to empirical evidence based on filed observations; (3) the mean sensitivity of modeled productivity to rainfall suggested greater negative response with reduced precipitation than positive response to an increased precipitation under extreme conditions at the three sites; and (4) gross primary productivity (GPP), net primary productivity (NPP), aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) all showed concave-down nonlinear responses to altered precipitation in all the models, but with different curvatures and mean values. Our results indicated that most models overestimate the negative drought effects and/or underestimate the positive effects of increased precipitation on primary productivity under normal climate conditions, highlighting the need for improving eco-hydrological processes in those models in the future.

Climatic changes are altering Earth's hydrological cycle, resulting in altered precipitation amounts, increased interannual variability of precipitation, and more frequent extreme precipitation events. These trends will likely continue into the future, having substantial impacts on net primary productivity (NPP) and associated ecosystem services such as food production and carbon sequestration. Frequently, experimental manipulations of precipitation have linked altered precipitation regimes to changes in NPP. Yet, findings have been diverse and substantial uncertainty still surrounds generalities describing patterns of ecosystem sensitivity to altered precipitation. Additionally, we do not know whether previously observed correlations between NPP and precipitation remain accurate when precipitation changes become extreme. We synthesized results from 83 case studies of experimental precipitation manipulations in grasslands worldwide. We used meta-analytical techniques to search for generalities and asymmetries of aboveground NPP (ANPP) and belowground NPP (BNPP) responses to both the direction and magnitude of precipitation change. Sensitivity (i.e., productivity response standardized by the amount of precipitation change) of BNPP was similar under precipitation additions and reductions, but ANPP was more sensitive to precipitation additions than reductions; this was especially evident in drier ecosystems. Additionally, overall relationships between the magnitude of productivity responses and the magnitude of precipitation change were saturating in form. The saturating form of this relationship was likely driven by ANPP responses to very extreme precipitation increases, although there were limited studies imposing extreme precipitation change, and there was considerable variation among experiments. This highlights the importance of incorporating gradients of manipulations, ranging from extreme drought to extreme precipitation increases into future climate change experiments. Additionally, policy and land management decisions related to global change scenarios should consider how ANPP and BNPP responses may differ, and that ecosystem responses to extreme events might not be predicted from relationships found under moderate environmental changes. Fil: Wilcox, Kevin R.. University of Oklahoma; Estados Unidos Fil: Shi, Zheng. University of Oklahoma; Estados Unidos Fil: Gherardi, Laureano. Arizona State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Lemoine, Nathan P.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: Koerner, Sally E.. University of South Florida; Estados Unidos Fil: Hoover, David L.. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service; Argentina Fil: Bork, Edward. University of Alberta; Canadá Fil: Byrne, Kerry M.. Humboldt State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Cahill Jr., James. University of Alberta; Canadá Fil: Collins, Scott L.. University of New Mexico; Estados Unidos Fil: Evans, Sarah. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Gilgen, Anna K.. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; Suiza Fil: Holub, Petr. Czech Academy of Sciences; República Checa Fil: Jiang, Lifen. University of Oklahoma; Estados Unidos Fil: Knapp, Alan K.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: LeCain, Daniel. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service; Argentina Fil: Liang, Junyi. University of Oklahoma; Estados Unidos Fil: García Palacios, Pablo. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos; España Fil: Peñuelas, Josep. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Centre de Recerca Ecológica I Aplicacions Forestals; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España Fil: Pockman, William T.. University of New Mexico; Estados Unidos Fil: Smith, Melinda D.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: Sun, Shanghua. Northwest A & F University; China Fil: White, Shannon R.. Government of Alberta; Canadá Fil: Yahdjian, María Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. ; Argentina Fil: Zhu, Kai. Rice University; Estados Unidos. University of Texas; Estados Unidos Fil: Luo, Yiqi. University of Oklahoma; Estados Unidos

Climate extremes will elicit responses from the individual to the ecosystem level. However, only recently have ecologists begun to synthetically assess responses to climate extremes across multiple levels of ecological organization. We review the literature to examine how plant responses vary and interact across levels of organization, focusing on how individual, population and community responses may inform ecosystem-level responses in herbaceous and forest plant communities. We report a high degree of variability at the individual level, and a consequential inconsistency in the translation of individual or population responses to directional changes in community- or ecosystem-level processes. The scaling of individual or population responses to community or ecosystem responses is often predicated upon the functional identity of the species in the community, in particular, the dominant species. Furthermore, the reported stability in plant community composition and functioning with respect to extremes is often driven by processes that operate at the community level, such as species niche partitioning and compensatory responses during or after the event. Future research efforts would benefit from assessing ecological responses across multiple levels of organization, as this will provide both a holistic and mechanistic understanding of ecosystem responses to increasing climatic variability. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Behavioural, ecological and evolutionary responses to extreme climatic events’.

Contents 41 I. 41 II. 42 III. 43 IV. 44 V. 45 Acknowledgements 46 References 46 SUMMARY: Precipitation (PPT) is a primary climatic determinant of plant growth and aboveground net primary production (ANPP) over much of the globe. Thus, PPT-ANPP relationships are important both ecologically and to land-atmosphere models that couple terrestrial vegetation to the global carbon cycle. Empirical PPT-ANPP relationships derived from long-term site-based data are almost always portrayed as linear, but recent evidence has accumulated that is inconsistent with an underlying linear relationship. We review, and then reconcile, these inconsistencies with a nonlinear model that incorporates observed asymmetries in PPT-ANPP relationships. Although data are currently lacking for parameterization, this new model highlights research needs that, when met, will improve our understanding of carbon cycle dynamics, as well as forecasts of ecosystem responses to climate change.

Precipitation and temperature drive many aspects of terrestrial ecosystem function. Climate change scenarios predict increasing precipitation variability and temperature, and long term experiments are required to evaluate the ecosystem consequences of interannual climate variation, increased growing season (intra-annual) rainfall variability, and warming. We present results from an experiment applying increased growing season rainfall variability and year round warming in native tallgrass prairie. During ten years of study, total growing season rainfall varied 2-fold, and we found ~50–200% interannual variability in plant growth and aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP), leaf carbon assimilation (ACO2), and soil CO2 efflux (JCO2) despite only ~40% variation in mean volumetric soil water content (0–15 cm, Θ15). Interannual variation in soil moisture was thus amplified in most measures of ecosystem response. Differences between years in Θ15 explained the greatest portion (14–52%) of the variation in these processes. Experimentally increased intra-annual season rainfall variability doubled the amplitude of intra-annual soil moisture variation and reduced Θ15 by 15%, causing most ecosystem processes to decrease 8–40% in some or all years with increased rainfall variability compared to ambient rainfall timing, suggesting reduced ecosystem rainfall use efficiency. Warming treatments increased soil temperature at 5 cm depth, particularly during spring, fall, and winter. Warming advanced canopy green up in spring, increased winter JCO2, and reduced summer JCO2 and forb ANPP, suggesting that the effects of warming differed in cooler versus warmer parts of the year. We conclude that (1) major ecosystem processes in this grassland may be substantially altered by predicted changes in interannual climate variability, intra-annual rainfall variability, and temperature, (2) interannual climate variation was a larger source of variation in ecosystem function than intra-annual rainfall variability and warming, and (3) effects of increased growing season rainfall variability and warming were small, but ecologically important. The relative effects of these climate drivers are likely to vary for different ecosystem processes and in wetter or drier ecosystems.

In grasslands worldwide, grazing by ungulates and periodic fires are important forces affecting resource availability and plant community structure. It is not clear, however, whether changes in community structure are the direct effects of the disturbance (i.e. fire and grazing) or are mediated indirectly through changes in resource abundance and availability. In North American tallgrass prairies, fire and grazing often have disparate effects on plant resources and plant diversity, yet, little is known about the individual and interactive effects of fire and grazing on resource variability and how that variability relates to heterogeneity in plant community structure, particularly at small scales. We conducted a Field study to determine the interactive effects of different long-term fire regimes (annual vs four-year fire frequency) and grazing by native ungulates (Bos bison) on small-scale plant community structure and resource variability (N and light) in native tallgrass prairie. Grazing enhanced light and nitrogen availability, but did not affect small-scale resource variability. In addition, grazing reduced the dominance of C-4 grasses which enhanced species richness, diversity and community heterogeneity. In contrast, annual fire increased community dominance and reduced species richness and diversity, particularly in the absence of grazing, but had no effect on community heterogeneity, resource availability and resource variability. Variability in the abundance of resources showed no relationship with community heterogeneity at the scale measured in this study, however we found a relationship between community dominance and heterogeneity. Therefore, we conclude that grazing generated small-scale community heterogeneity in this mesic grassland by directly affecting plant community dominance, rather than indirectly through changes in resource variability.

Theoretical analyses and experimental studies of synthesized assemblages indicate that under particular circumstances species diversity can enhance community productivity through niche complementarity. It remains unclear whether this process has important effects in mature natural ecosystems where competitive feedbacks and complex environmental influences affect diversity-productivity relationships. In this study, we evaluated diversity-productivity relationships while statistically controlling for environmental influences in 12 natural grassland ecosystems. Because diversity-productivity relationships are conspicuously nonlinear, we developed a nonlinear structural equation modeling ( SEM) methodology to separate the effects of diversity on productivity from the effects of productivity on diversity. Meta-analysis was used to summarize the SEM findings across studies. While competitive effects were readily detected, enhancement of production by diversity was not. These results suggest that the influence of small-scale diversity on productivity in mature natural systems is a weak force, both in absolute terms and relative to the effects of other controls on productivity.

Exotic species dominate many communities; however the functional significance of species' biogeographic origin remains highly contentious. This debate is fuelled in part by the lack of globally replicated, systematic data assessing the relationship between species provenance, function and response to perturbations. We examined the abundance of native and exotic plant species at 64 grasslands in 13 countries, and at a subset of the sites we experimentally tested native and exotic species responses to two fundamental drivers of invasion, mineral nutrient supplies and vertebrate herbivory. Exotic species are six times more likely to dominate communities than native species. Furthermore, while experimental nutrient addition increases the cover and richness of exotic species, nutrients decrease native diversity and cover. Native and exotic species also differ in their response to vertebrate consumer exclusion. These results suggest that species origin has functional significance, and that eutrophication will lead to increased exotic dominance in grasslands., It remains unclear whether exotic and native species are functionally different. Using a global grassland experiment, Seabloom et al. show that native and exotic species respond differently to two globally pervasive environmental changes, addition of mineral nutrients and alteration of herbivore density.

It remains unclear whether biodiversity buffers ecosystems against climate extremes, which are becoming increasingly frequent worldwide1. Early results suggested that the ecosystem productivity of diverse grassland plant communities was more resistant, changing less during drought, and more resilient, recovering more quickly after drought, than that of depauperate communities2. However, subsequent experimental tests produced mixed results3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Here we use data from 46 experiments that manipulated grassland plant diversity to test whether biodiversity provides resistance during and resilience after climate events. We show that biodiversity increased ecosystem resistance for a broad range of climate events, including wet or dry, moderate or extreme, and brief or prolonged events. Across all studies and climate events, the productivity of low-diversity communities with one or two species changed by approximately 50% during climate events, whereas that of high-diversity communities with 16–32 species was more resistant, changing by only approximately 25%. By a year after each climate event, ecosystem productivity had often fully recovered, or overshot, normal levels of productivity in both high- and low-diversity communities, leading to no detectable dependence of ecosystem resilience on biodiversity. Our results suggest that biodiversity mainly stabilizes ecosystem productivity, and productivity-dependent ecosystem services, by increasing resistance to climate events. Anthropogenic environmental changes that drive biodiversity loss thus seem likely to decrease ecosystem stability14, and restoration of biodiversity to increase it, mainly by changing the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate events.

For 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.