Search for: All records

Habitat loss is rarely truly random and often occurs selectively with respect to the plant species comprising the habitat. Such selective habitat removal that decreases plant species diversity, that is, habitat simplification or homogenization, may have two negative effects on other species. First, the reduction in plant community size (number of individuals) represents habitat loss for species at higher trophic levels who use plants as habitat. Second, when plants are removed selectively, the resulting habitat simplification decreases the diversity of resources available to species at higher trophic levels. It follows that habitat loss combined with simplification will reduce biodiversity more than habitat loss without simplification. To test this, we experimentally implemented two types of habitat loss at the plant community level and compared biodiversity of resident arthropods between habitat loss types. In the first type of habitat loss, we reduced habitats by 50% nonselectively, maintaining original relative abundance and diversity of plant species and therefore habitat and resource diversity for arthropods. In the second type of habitat loss, we reduced habitats by 50% selectively, removing all but one common plant species, dramatically simplifying habitat and resources for arthropods. We replicated this experiment across three common plant species: Asclepias tuberosa, Solidago altissima, and Baptisia alba. While habitat loss with simplification reduced arthropod species richness compared with habitat loss without simplification, neither type of habitat loss affected diversity, measured as effective number of species (ENS), or species evenness as compared with controls. Instead, differences in ENS and evenness were explained by the identity of the common plant species. Our results indicate that the quality of remaining habitat, in our case plant species identity, may be more important for multi‐trophic diversity than habitat diversity per se. 

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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.