Search

Causal effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functions can be estimated using experimental or observational designs — designs that pose a tradeoff between drawing credible causal inferences from correlations and drawing generalizable inferences. Here, we develop a design that reduces this tradeoff and revisits the question of how plant species diversity affects productivity. Our design leverages longitudinal data from 43 grasslands in 11 countries and approaches borrowed from fields outside of ecology to draw causal inferences from observational data. Contrary to many prior studies, we estimate that increases in plot-level species richness caused productivity to decline: a 10% increase in richness decreased productivity by 2.4%, 95% CI [−4.1, −0.74]. This contradiction stems from two sources. First, prior observational studies incompletely control for confounding factors. Second, most experiments plant fewer rare and non-native species than exist in nature. Although increases in native, dominant species increased productivity, increases in rare and non-native species decreased productivity, making the average effect negative in our study. By reducing the tradeoff between experimental and observational designs, our study demonstrates how observational studies can complement prior ecological experiments and inform future ones.

1. Models of natural processes necessarily sacrifice some realism for the sake of tractability. Detailed, parameter‐rich models often provide accurate estimates of system behaviour but can be data‐hungry and difficult to operationalize. Moreover, complexity increases the danger of ‘over‐fitting’, which leads to poor performance when models are applied to novel conditions. This challenge is typically described in terms of a trade‐off between bias and variance (i.e. low accuracy vs. low precision). 2. In studies of ecological communities, this trade‐off often leads to an argument about the level of detail needed to describe interactions among species. Here, we used data from a grassland biodiversity experiment containing nine locally abundant plant species (the Jena ‘dominance experiment’) to parameterize models representing six increasingly complex hypotheses about interactions. For each model, we calculated goodness‐of‐fit across different subsets of the data based on sown species richness levels, and tested how performance changed depending on whether or not the same data were used to parameterize and test the model (i.e. within vs. out‐of‐sample), and whether the range of diversity treatments being predicted fell inside or outside of the range used for parameterization. 3. As expected, goodness‐of‐fit improved as a function of model complexity for all within‐sample tests. In contrast, the best out‐of‐sample performance generally resulted from models of intermediate complexity (i.e. with only two interaction coefficients per species—an intraspecific effect and a single pooled interspecific effect), especially for predictions that fell outside the range of diversity treatments used for parameterization. In accordance with other studies, our results also demonstrate that commonly used selection methods based on AIC of models fitted to the full dataset correspond more closely to within‐sample than out‐of‐sample performance. 4. Synthesis. Our results demonstrate that models which include only general intra and interspecific interaction coefficients can be sufficient for estimating species‐level abundances across a wide range of contexts and may provide better out‐of‐sample performance than do more complex models. These findings serve as a reminder that simpler models may often provide a better trade‐off between bias and variance in ecological systems, particularly when applying models beyond the conditions used to parameterize them. This paper arose as part of the ‘BEF-Coexist’ workshop, organized by Y.F., C.R., and W.S.H., with funding from the German Research Foundation (RO2397/8). A.T.C. was supported by a ‘catalyst’ postdoctoral fellowship from sDiv. S.S. was supported by the Spanish Government under a Ramón y Cajal contract (RYC-2016- 20604). Funding and support for the Jena Experiment were provided by the German Research Foundation (FOR456/1451), Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, and Max Planck Society.