Weak reciprocal relationships between productivity and plant biodiversity in managed grasslands

Abstract Relationships between plant biodiversity and productivity are highly variable across studies in managed grasslands, partly because of the challenge of accounting for confounding's and reciprocal relationships between biodiversity and productivity in observational data collected at a single point in time. Identifying causal effects in the presence of these challenges requires new analytical approaches and repeated observations to determine the temporal ordering of effects. Though rarely available, data collected at multiple time points within a growing season can help to disentangle the effects of biodiversity on productivity and vice versa. Here we advance this understanding using seasonal grassland surveys from 150 managed grassland sites repeated over 2 years, along with statistical methods that are relatively new in ecology, that aim to infer causal relationships from observational data. We compare our approach to common methods used in ecology, that is, mixed‐effect models, and to analyses that use observations from only one point in time within the growing seasons. We find that mixed models overestimated the effect of biodiversity on productivity by two standard errors as compared to our main models, which find no evidence for a strong positive effect. For the effect of productivity on biodiversity we found a negative effect using mixed models which was highly sensitive to the time at which the data was collected within the growing season. In contrast, our main models found no evidence for an effect. Conventional models overestimated the effects between biodiversity and productivity, likely due to confounding variables. Synthesis . Understanding the biodiversity‐productivity relationships is a focal topic in ecology, but unravelling their reciprocal nature remains challenging. We demonstrate that higher‐resolution longitudinal data along with methods to control for a broader suite of confounding variables can be used to resolve reciprocal relationships. We highlight future data needs and methods that can help us to resolve biodiversity‐productivity relationships, crucial for reconciling a long‐running debate in ecology and ultimately, to understand how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning respond to global change.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Ecology
Published
2024-08-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.14400
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.84

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Weak reciprocal relationships between productivity and plant biodiversity in managed grasslands

Peter Manning, Alexandra Weigelt, Fons van der Plas, Karl Andraczek et al.
7 citations
Journal of Ecology
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
4.84
article

Weak reciprocal relationships between productivity and plant biodiversity in managed grasslands

Peter Manning, Alexandra Weigelt, Fons van der Plas, Karl Andraczek, Laura E. Dee, Christian Wirth, Daniel Prati, Gaëtane Le Provost, Judith Hinderling
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Abstract Relationships between plant biodiversity and productivity are highly variable across studies in managed grasslands, partly because of the challenge of accounting for confounding's and reciprocal relationships between biodiversity and productivity in observational data collected at a single point in time. Identifying causal effects in the presence of these challenges requires new analytical approaches and repeated observations to determine the temporal ordering of effects. Though rarely available, data collected at multiple time points within a growing season can help to disentangle the effects of biodiversity on productivity and vice versa. Here we advance this understanding using seasonal grassland surveys from 150 managed grassland sites repeated over 2 years, along with statistical methods that are relatively new in ecology, that aim to infer causal relationships from observational data. We compare our approach to common methods used in ecology, that is, mixed‐effect models, and to analyses that use observations from only one point in time within the growing seasons. We find that mixed models overestimated the effect of biodiversity on productivity by two standard errors as compared to our main models, which find no evidence for a strong positive effect. For the effect of productivity on biodiversity we found a negative effect using mixed models which was highly sensitive to the time at which the data was collected within the growing season. In contrast, our main models found no evidence for an effect. Conventional models overestimated the effects between biodiversity and productivity, likely due to confounding variables. Synthesis . Understanding the biodiversity‐productivity relationships is a focal topic in ecology, but unravelling their reciprocal nature remains challenging. We demonstrate that higher‐resolution longitudinal data along with methods to control for a broader suite of confounding variables can be used to resolve reciprocal relationships. We highlight future data needs and methods that can help us to resolve biodiversity‐productivity relationships, crucial for reconciling a long‐running debate in ecology and ultimately, to understand how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning respond to global change.

Journal of EcologyVol. 112(10)
University of Bern (CH), University of Colorado Boulder (US), German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE), Senckenberg - Leibniz Institution for Biodiversity and Earth System Research (DE), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), École Nationale Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques de Bordeaux-Aquitaine (FR), Santé et Agroécologie du Vignoble (FR), Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (DE), University of Bergen (NO), Wageningen University & Research (NL), Leipzig University (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
4.84
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.