Search for: All records

Biodiversity-ecosystem functioning (BEF) research grew rapidly following concerns that biodiversity loss would negatively affect ecosystem functions and the ecosystem services they underpin. However, despite evidence that biodiversity strongly affects ecosystem functioning, the influence of BEF research upon policy and the management of ‘real-world’ ecosystems, i.e., semi-natural habitats and agroecosystems, has been limited. Here, we address this issue by classifying BEF research into three clusters based on the degree of human control over species composition and the spatial scale, in terms of grain, of the study, and discussing how the research of each cluster is best suited to inform particular fields of ecosystem management. Research in the first cluster, small-grain highly controlled studies, is best able to provide general insights into mechanisms and to inform the management of species-poor and highly managed systems such as croplands, plantations, and the restoration of heavily degraded ecosystems. Research from the second cluster, small-grain observational studies, and species removal and addition studies, may allow for direct predictions of the impacts of species loss in specific semi-natural ecosystems. Research in the third cluster, large-grain uncontrolled studies, may best inform landscape-scale management and national-scale policy. We discuss barriers to transfer within each cluster and suggest how new research and knowledge exchange mechanisms may overcome these challenges. To meet the potential for BEF research to address global challenges, we recommend transdisciplinary research that goes beyond these current clusters and considers the social-ecological context of the ecosystems in which BEF knowledge is generated. This requires recognizing the social and economic value of biodiversity for ecosystem services at scales, and in units, that matter to land managers and policy makers. 

Priority effects refer to the order or timing of species arrival, including how species that arrive early at a site either positively or negatively affect establishment, growth, or reproduction of species that arrive later. Despite the clear implications of priority effects for ecological restoration, there have been no reviews of how and where priority effects have been studied and the extent to which findings can be applied to restoration. Here, we systematically review the literature on priority effects by (1) synthesizing information from papers that compared simultaneous and nonsimultaneous planting or sowing; (2) discussing the mechanisms through which priority effects operate, (3) considering how these mechanisms might be manipulated to achieve restoration goals; and (4) highlighting future research needed to improve the use of priority effects in restoration. In a term‐targeted search, we found 43 studies that experimentally manipulated the order of arrival of different species. Overall, these concluded that even small delays in arrival time, as opposed to simultaneous arrival of species, can promote differences in subsequent community composition as well as ecosystem functions. There were very few studies on the long‐term stability of these priority effects, and the majority were conducted in temperate grasslands. Our findings suggest that creating alternative vegetation states via priority treatments is a promising avenue for restoration. However, for the concept to be best operationalized for restoration, we need research in more ecosystems that are priorities for restoration, and treatments that are followed over extended time periods.