Search

Interactions among species are a fundamental aspect of biodiversity and drive ecosystem functioning and services. Species interactions include direct (pairwise) interactions among two species and indirect interactions that occur when a third species interacts and changes the pairwise direct interaction. In a three‐species interaction network, these interactions can be transitive (where one species outperforms all others) or intransitive (where each species outperforms another). Here, we investigate how direct and indirect interactions influence ecosystem functions in crop systems and how diversification and evolutionary adaptation can influence those interactions and therefore ecosystem functions.A common garden experiment was conducted with crop communities in monocultures, 2‐ and 3‐species mixtures that had either a common or no coexistence history (i.e. co‐adaptation) for the three previous years. Net, direct and indirect interaction intensities were estimated and compared between the diversity levels and coexistence histories. Furthermore, species interaction networks were inspected for transitive/intransitive interactions.We found evidence for less intense competition in mixtures and for reduced negative direct interaction intensity and enhanced facilitative effects upon co‐adaptation. We could further show that indirect interactions were generally less important for co‐adaptation than direct interactions. Additionally, we showed that co‐adaptation has the potential to shift interactions in the species interaction networks from competitive intransitive into pairwise competitive interactions where interactions occurred mainly between two species.Synthesis. Co‐adapted crop species with reduced negative interactions might have the potential to enhance productivity, especially in more diverse cropping systems. This supports the notion that intercropping is a vital part towards a more sustainable agriculture and one with further yield potential when developing cultivars optimised for growth in mixtures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the concept of ecological intensification of agriculture through biodiversity management. It explains that humans have been able to achieve higher population densities than other animals due to the invention of agriculture, which allows for the conversion of biomass into food. However, modern industrial agriculture has led to negative effects on the environment, such as pollution, soil fertility loss, and biodiversity loss. The article highlights the positive relationship between biodiversity and plant biomass production in agroecosystems and explores various applications of biodiversity in agriculture, including genetic diversity within crops, mixed cropping, and field border plant diversity. It also discusses obstacles to implementing ecological intensification, such as lack of knowledge and inappropriate incentives. The article concludes by providing a list of literature reviews that readers can use as a starting point for further research on the topic. [Extracted from the article]

The Dehesa ecosystem provides important social and economic values across the Iberian Peninsula. Assessing the temporal dynamics of this system under climate change is important for the maintenance and conservation of these highly valuable ecosystems. Here, we present the baseline data of an observational plot network in the Dehesa that will form the foundation for monitoring long-term dynamics and for experimental manipulations testing the mechanisms driving resilience within the Dehesa. The initial surveys indicate that the forest structure is typical for the Dehesa, which suggests it is an exemplary site for examining temporal dynamics of this ecosystem. We present these initial data to encourage collaborations from international scientists via either direct experimental projects or meta-analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing biodiversity generally enhances productivity through selection and complementarity effects not only in natural, but also in agricultural, systems. However, the quest to explain why diverse cropping systems are more productive than monocultures remains a central goal in agricultural science. In a mesocosm experiment, we constructed monocultures, two‐ and four‐species mixtures from eight crop species with or without fertilizer and both in temperate Switzerland and dry, Mediterranean Spain. We measured physical factors and plant traits and related these in structural equation models to selection and complementarity effects to explain seed yield differences between monocultures and mixtures. Increased crop diversity increased seed yield in Switzerland. This positive biodiversity effect was driven to almost the same extent by selection and complementarity effects, which increased with plant height and specific leaf area (SLA), respectively. Also, ecological processes driving seed yield increases from monocultures to mixtures differed from those responsible for seed yield increases through the diversification of mixtures from two to four species. Whereas selection effects were mainly driven by one species, complementarity effects were linked to larger leaf area per unit leaf weight. Seed yield increases due to mixture diversification were driven only by complementarity effects and were not mediated through the measured traits, suggesting that ecological processes beyond those measured in this study were responsible for positive diversity effects on yield beyond two‐species mixtures. By understanding the drivers of positive biodiversity–productivity relationships, we can improve our ability to predict species combinations that enhance ecosystem functioning and can promote sustainable agricultural production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plant recruitment interactions (i.e., what recruits under what) shape the composition, diversity, and structure of plant communities. Despite the huge body of knowledge on the mechanisms underlying recruitment interactions among species, we still know little about the structure of the recruitment networks emerging in ecological communities. Modeling and analyzing the community-level structure of plant recruitment interactions as a complex network can provide relevant information on ecological and evolutionary processes acting both at the species and ecosystem levels. We report a data set containing 143 plant recruitment networks in 23 countries across five continents, including temperate and tropical ecosystems. Each network identifies the species under which another species recruits. All networks report the number of recruits (i.e., individuals) per species. The data set includes >850,000 recruiting individuals involved in 118,411 paired interactions among 3318 vascular plant species across the globe. The cover of canopy species and open ground is also provided. Three sampling protocols were used: (1) The Recruitment Network (RN) protocol (106 networks) focuses on interactions among established plants ("canopy species") and plants in their early stages of recruitment ("recruit species"). A series of plots was delimited within a locality, and all the individuals recruiting and their canopy species were identified; (2) The paired Canopy-Open (pCO) protocol (26 networks) consists in locating a potential canopy plant and identifying recruiting individuals under the canopy and in a nearby open space of the same area; (3) The Georeferenced plot (GP) protocol (11 networks) consists in using information from georeferenced individual plants in large plots to infer canopy-recruit interactions. Some networks incorporate data for both herbs and woody species, whereas others focus exclusively on woody species. The location of each study site, geographical coordinates, country, locality, responsible author, sampling dates, sampling method, and life habits of both canopy and recruit species are provided. This database will allow researchers to test ecological, biogeographical, and evolutionary hypotheses related to plant recruitment interactions. There are no copyright restrictions on the data set; please cite this data paper when using these data in publications., (© 2022 The Authors. Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Ecological Society of America.)