Search

Human impacts such as habitat loss, climate change and biological invasions are radically altering biodiversity, with greater effects projected into the future. Evidence suggests human impacts may differ substantially between terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, but the reasons for these differences are poorly understood. We propose an integrative approach to explain these differences by linking impacts to four fundamental processes that structure communities: dispersal, speciation, species-level selection and ecological drift. Our goal is to provide process-based insights into why human impacts, and responses to impacts, may differ across ecosystem types using a mechanistic, eco-evolutionary comparative framework. To enable these insights, we review and synthesise (i) how the four processes influence diversity and dynamics in terrestrial versus freshwater communities, specifically whether the relative importance of each process differs among ecosystems, and (ii) the pathways by which human impacts can produce divergent responses across ecosystems, due to differences in the strength of processes among ecosystems we identify. Finally, we highlight research gaps and next steps, and discuss how this approach can provide new insights for conservation. By focusing on the processes that shape diversity in communities, we aim to mechanistically link human impacts to ongoing and future changes in ecosystems., (© 2022 The Authors. Ecology Letters published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

To understand and forecast biological responses to climate change, scientists frequently use field experiments that alter temperature and precipitation. Climate manipulations can manifest in complex ways, however, challenging interpretations of biological responses. We reviewed publications to compile a database of daily plot-scale climate data from 15 active-warming experiments. We find that the common practices of analysing treatments as mean or categorical changes (e.g. warmed vs. unwarmed) masks important variation in treatment effects over space and time. Our synthesis showed that measured mean warming, in plots with the same target warming within a study, differed by up to 1.6  ∘ C (63% of target), on average, across six studies with blocked designs. Variation was high across sites and designs: for example, plots differed by 1.1  ∘ C (47% of target) on average, for infrared studies with feedback control (n = 3) vs. by 2.2  ∘ C (80% of target) on average for infrared with constant wattage designs (n = 2). Warming treatments produce non-temperature effects as well, such as soil drying. The combination of these direct and indirect effects is complex and can have important biological consequences. With a case study of plant phenology across five experiments in our database, we show how accounting for drier soils with warming tripled the estimated sensitivity of budburst to temperature. We provide recommendations for future analyses, experimental design, and data sharing to improve our mechanistic understanding from climate change experiments, and thus their utility to accurately forecast species' responses., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS.)