Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem service vulnerability.
TL;DR: A novel risk-assessment framework is developed that integrates ecological and evolutionary perspectives on functional traits to determine species’ effects on ecosystems and their tolerance of environmental changes, and suggests a research agenda at the interface of evolutionary biology and ecosystem ecology.
Abstract: People depend on benefits provided by ecological systems. Understanding how these ecosystem services – and the ecosystem properties underpinning them – respond to drivers of change is therefore an urgent priority. We address this challenge through developing a novel risk-assessment framework that integrates ecological and evolutionary perspectives on functional traits to determine species’ effects on ecosystems and their tolerance of environmental changes. We define Specific Effect Function (SEF) as the per-gram or per capita capacity of a species to affect an ecosystem property, and Specific Response Function (SRF) as the ability of a species to maintain or enhance its population as the environment changes. Our risk assessment is based on the idea that the security of ecosystem services depends on how effects (SEFs) and tolerances (SRFs) of organisms – which both depend on combinations of functional traits – correlate across species and how they are arranged on the species’ phylogeny. Four extreme situations are theoretically possible, from minimum concern when SEF and SRF are neither correlated nor show a phylogenetic signal, to maximum concern when they are negatively correlated (i.e., the most important species are the least tolerant) and phylogenetically patterned (lacking independent backup). We illustrate the assessment with five case studies, involving both plant and animal examples. However, the extent to which the frequency of the four plausible outcomes, or their intermediates, apply more widely in real-world ecological systems is an open question that needs empirical evidence, and suggests a research agenda at the interface of evolutionary biology and ecosystem ecology.
Citations
More filters
United Nations Environment Programme1, American Museum of Natural History2, Imperial College London3, Swansea University4, University College London5, National University of Cordoba6, Tel Aviv University7, Max Planck Society8, University of Oldenburg9, Microsoft10, University of Oxford11, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire12
TL;DR: A terrestrial assemblage database of unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage is analysed to quantify local biodiversity responses to land use and related changes and shows that in the worst-affected habitats, pressures reduce within-sample species richness by an average of 76.5%, total abundance by 39.5% and rarefaction-based richness by 40.3%.
Abstract: Human activities, especially conversion and degradation of habitats, are causing global biodiversity declines. How local ecological assemblages are responding is less clear--a concern given their importance for many ecosystem functions and services. We analysed a terrestrial assemblage database of unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage to quantify local biodiversity responses to land use and related changes. Here we show that in the worst-affected habitats, these pressures reduce within-sample species richness by an average of 76.5%, total abundance by 39.5% and rarefaction-based richness by 40.3%. We estimate that, globally, these pressures have already slightly reduced average within-sample richness (by 13.6%), total abundance (10.7%) and rarefaction-based richness (8.1%), with changes showing marked spatial variation. Rapid further losses are predicted under a business-as-usual land-use scenario; within-sample richness is projected to fall by a further 3.4% globally by 2100, with losses concentrated in biodiverse but economically poor countries. Strong mitigation can deliver much more positive biodiversity changes (up to a 1.9% average increase) that are less strongly related to countries' socioeconomic status.
2,532 citations
University of Reading1, Joint Nature Conservation Committee2, University of Southampton3, University of Sheffield4, University of Oxford5, Imperial College London6, University of Zurich7, Instituto Superior Técnico8, University of York9, University of California, Berkeley10, University College London11, Environmental Change Institute12, Autonomous University of Madrid13
TL;DR: A range of mechanisms underpinning the resilience of ecosystem functions across three ecological scales are identified and biodiversity, encompassing variation from within species to across landscapes, may be crucial for the longer-term resilience ofcosystem functions and the services that they underpin.
Abstract: Accelerating rates of environmental change and the continued loss of global biodiversity threaten functions and services delivered by ecosystems. Much ecosystem monitoring and management is focused on the provision of ecosystem functions and services under current environmental conditions, yet this could lead to inappropriate management guidance and undervaluation of the importance of biodiversity. The maintenance of ecosystem functions and services under substantial predicted future environmental change (i.e., their ‘resilience’) is crucial. Here we identify a range of mechanisms underpinning the resilience of ecosystem functions across three ecological scales. Although potentially less important in the short term, biodiversity, encompassing variation from within species to across landscapes, may be crucial for the longer-term resilience of ecosystem functions and the services that they underpin.
871 citations
TL;DR: The concept of knowledge shortfalls is updated and the tradeoffs between generality and uncertainty are reviewed and a general framework for the combined impacts and consequences of shortfalls of large-scale biodiversity knowledge is concluded.
Abstract: Ecologists and evolutionary biologists are increasingly using big-data approaches to tackle questions at large spatial, taxonomic, and temporal scales. However, despite recent efforts to gather two centuries of biodiversity inventories into comprehensive databases, many crucial research questions remain unanswered. Here, we update the concept of knowledge shortfalls and review the tradeoffs between generality and uncertainty. We present seven key shortfalls of current biodiversity data. Four previously proposed shortfalls pinpoint knowledge gaps for species taxonomy (Linnean), distribution (Wallacean), abundance (Prestonian), and evolutionary patterns (Darwinian). We also redefine the Hutchinsonian shortfall to apply to the abiotic tolerances of species and propose new shortfalls relating to limited knowledge of species traits (Raunkiaeran) and biotic interactions (Eltonian). We conclude with a general framework for the combined impacts and consequences of shortfalls of large-scale biodiversity knowledge f...
667 citations
National Autonomous University of Mexico1, National University of Comahue2, University of Jaén3, University of Seville4, National University of Cordoba5, Sao Paulo State University6, Spanish National Research Council7, University of Oviedo8, University of Granada9, University of Chile10, University of Vigo11, Central University of Venezuela12
TL;DR: A novel model proposes a novel approach that relates the diversity of both species and interactions along a gradient of environmental deterioration and explores how the rate of loss of ecological functions, and consequently of ecosystem services, can be accelerated or restrained depending on how the rates of species loss covaries with the rateof interactions loss.
Abstract: Summary 1. The effects of the present biodiversity crisis have been largely focused on the loss of species. However, a missed component of biodiversity loss that often accompanies or even precedes species disappearance is the extinction of ecological interactions. 2. Here, we propose a novel model that (i) relates the diversity of both species and interactions along a gradient of environmental deterioration and (ii) explores how the rate of loss of ecological functions, and consequently of ecosystem services, can be accelerated or restrained depending on how the rate of species loss covaries with the rate of interactions loss. 3. We find that the loss of species and interactions are decoupled, such that ecological interactions are often lost at a higher rate. This implies that the loss of ecological interactions may occur well before species disappearance, affecting species functionality and ecosystems services at a faster rate than species extinctions. We provide a number of empirical case studies illustrating these points. 4. Our approach emphasizes the importance of focusing on species interactions as the major biodiversity component from which the ‘health’ of ecosystems depends.
603 citations
Cites background from "Functional traits, the phylogeny of..."
...Given that many key functional aspects of ecosystems closely depend on biotic interactions, their loss may have pervasive effects accelerating species local extinction and decay of ecosystem functions, ultimately collapsing the derived services provided to humans (D ıaz et al. 2013)....
[...]
TL;DR: Key aspects of microbial traits are reviewed and a synthesis of these studies reveals that, despite the promiscuity of HGT, microbial traits appear to be phylogenetically conserved, or not distributed randomly across the tree of life.
Abstract: A focus on the phenotypic characteristics of microorganisms-their traits-offers a path for interpreting the growing amount of microbiome data. We review key aspects of microbial traits, as well as approaches used to assay their phylogenetic distribution. Recent studies reveal that microbial traits are differentially conserved across the tree of life and appear to be conserved in a hierarchical fashion, possibly linked to their biochemical complexity. These results suggest a predictive framework whereby the genetic (or taxonomic) resolution of microbiome variation among samples provides information about the traits under selection. The organizational parallels seen among human and free-living microbiomes seem to support this idea. Developments in this framework may offer predictions not only for how microbial composition responds to changing environmental conditions, but also for how these changes may alter the health or functioning in human, engineered, and environmental systems.
584 citations
Cites background from "Functional traits, the phylogeny of..."
...We define traits broadly to encompass the physiological, morphological, or behavioral characteristics of a microorganism, without regard to whether they can be deconstructed into simpler traits (22, 23)....
[...]
...Often, however, it is useful to consider a taxon’s response to the environment as a trait itself (22, 48), rather than the conglomerate of traits underlying the response (49)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: A method of correcting for the phylogeny has been proposed, which specifies a set of contrasts among species, contrasts that are statistically independent and can be used in regression or correlation studies.
Abstract: Recent years have seen a growth in numerical studies using the comparative method. The method usually involves a comparison of two phenotypes across a range of species or higher taxa, or a comparison of one phenotype with an environmental variable. Objectives of such studies vary, and include assessing whether one variable is correlated with another and assessing whether the regression of one variable on another differs significantly from some expected value. Notable recent studies using statistical methods of this type include Pilbeam and Gould's (1974) regressions of tooth area on several size measurements in mammals; Sherman's (1979) test of the relation between insect chromosome numbers and social behavior; Damuth's (1981) investigation of population density and body size in mammals; Martin's (1981) regression of brain weight in mammals on body weight; Givnish's (1982) examination of traits associated with dioecy across the families of angiosperms; and Armstrong's (1983) regressions of brain weight on body weight and basal metabolism rate in mammals. My intention is to point out a serious statistical problem with this approach, a problem that affects all of these studies. It arises from the fact that species are part of a hierarchically structured phylogeny, and thus cannot be regarded for statistical purposes as if drawn independently from the same distribution. This problem has been noticed before, and previous suggestions of ways of coping with it are briefly discussed. The nonindependence can be circumvented in principle if adequate information on the phylogeny is available. The information needed to do so and the limitations on its use will be discussed. The problem will be discussed and illustrated with reference to continuous variables, but the same statistical issues arise when one or both of the variables are discrete, in which case the statistical methods involve contingency tables rather than regressions and correlations.
8,833 citations
"Functional traits, the phylogeny of..." refers background in this paper
...2008): if SEFs and SRFs are generated by different suites of traits that have been evolving separately, phylogenetic correlations between them are likely to be weak, although nonphylogenetic correlations could still often be strong because of the similarity of close relatives (Felsenstein 1985)....
[...]
...…2008): if SEFs and SRFs are generated by different suites of traits that have been evolving separately, phylogenetic correlations between them are likely to be weak, although nonphylogenetic correlations could still often be strong because of the similarity of close relatives (Felsenstein 1985)....
[...]
University of Michigan1, College of William & Mary2, McGill University3, Western Washington University4, Arizona State University5, Imperial College London6, University of Minnesota7, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences8, Stanford University9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, United States Geological Survey11, University of British Columbia12, Columbia University13
TL;DR: It is argued that human actions are dismantling the Earth’s ecosystems, eliminating genes, species and biological traits at an alarming rate, and the question of how such loss of biological diversity will alter the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide society with the goods and services needed to prosper is asked.
Abstract: The most unique feature of Earth is the existence of life, and the most extraordinary feature of life is its diversity. Approximately 9 million types of plants, animals, protists and fungi inhabit the Earth. So, too, do 7 billion people. Two decades ago, at the first Earth Summit, the vast majority of the world's nations declared that human actions were dismantling the Earth's ecosystems, eliminating genes, species and biological traits at an alarming rate. This observation led to the question of how such loss of biological diversity will alter the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide society with the goods and services needed to prosper.
5,244 citations
"Functional traits, the phylogeny of..." refers background in this paper
...However, anthropogenic drivers of change are having widespread effects on ecosystems, potentially compromising their ability to continue to provide these benefits (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Cardinale et al. 2012)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1991
TL;DR: The comparative method for studying adaptation why worry about phylogeny?
Abstract: The comparative method for studying adaptation why worry about phylogeny? reconstructing phylogenetic trees and ancestral character states comparative analysis of discrete data comparative analysis of continuous variables determining the form of comparative relationships.
5,197 citations
TL;DR: The combination of these phylogenies with powerful new statistical approaches for the analysis of biological evolution is challenging widely held beliefs about the history and evolution of life on Earth.
Abstract: Phylogenetic trees describe the pattern of descent amongst a group of species. With the rapid accumulation of DNA sequence data, more and more phylogenies are being constructed based upon sequence comparisons. The combination of these phylogenies with powerful new statistical approaches for the analysis of biological evolution is challenging widely held beliefs about the history and evolution of life on Earth.
4,159 citations
"Functional traits, the phylogeny of..." refers methods in this paper
...…species realized effect, effect traits, and SRF, using Pagel’s k statistic (which ranges from 0 for phylogenetic randomness to 1 for strong signal; Pagel 1999; Freckleton et al. 2002) to quantify signal strength for continuous variables, and Fritz and Purvis’s (2010) D (here, expressed as 1 D to…...
[...]
...We also estimated the strength of the phylogenetic signal in the SEF or species realized effect, effect traits, and SRF, using Pagel’s k statistic (which ranges from 0 for phylogenetic randomness to 1 for strong signal; Pagel 1999; Freckleton et al. 2002) to quantify signal strength for continuous variables, and Fritz and Purvis’s (2010) D (here, expressed as 1 D to put it on the same scale because D is a measure of phylogenetic dispersion rather than concentration) for binary variables....
[...]
BirdLife International1, United Nations Environment Programme2, Zoological Society of London3, Statistics Netherlands4, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill5, Old Dominion University6, Conservation International7, Food and Agriculture Organization8, University of Virginia9, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds10, University of Queensland11, University of Cambridge12, National Center for Atmospheric Research13, World Wide Fund for Nature14, South African National Parks15, UNESCO16, University of British Columbia17, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research18, The Nature Conservancy19, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center20, American Bird Conservancy21, Stellenbosch University22, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources23
TL;DR: Most indicators of the state of biodiversity showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity showed increases, indicating that the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 targets have not been met.
Abstract: In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species' population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.
3,993 citations
"Functional traits, the phylogeny of..." refers background in this paper
...The other is the risk of local or even global loss of species whose tolerance is surpassed (Butchart et al. 2010; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010; Larigauderie et al. 2012), and the associated reduction in evolutionary capital — the ability of evolutionary processes to…...
[...]