Expert‐led priorities for a response diversity research agenda in ecology

Response diversity describes variation in ecological responses to environmental change. Response diversity is expected to drive ecological stability since a wider variety of responses to one or more environmental factors should stabilise fluctuations of ecosystem functions. However, uptake of empirical response diversity research has been slow. Here we assess current thinking around response diversity by conducting a targeted expert survey of response diversity researchers. Our survey revealed that one barrier to a unified research agenda on response diversity is the lack of agreement among respondents on the definition of response diversity, and to which dimension(s) of ecological stability response diversity might relate. When asked to select the temporal, spatial and biological scales at which response diversity may be most relevant for ecological stability, respondents chose a wide range of scales indicating differences in how experts view response diversity's stabilising effect. Respondents considered studies incorporating both biotic interactions and abiotic environmental responses to be especially challenging. So too were those thinking about responses to multiple environmental changes simultaneously. Moreover, respondents thought inconsistencies in the definitions of, and methods for measuring response diversity were a major challenge facing the field. Despite these barriers, experts expressed strong support for globally coordinated research efforts on response diversity through syntheses, workshops, and distributed experiments. However, they also cautioned that imposing a single standardised metric across use‐cases would be too restrictive. Our findings suggest we can shift response diversity from a loose collection of conceptual studies and inconsistent empirical applications towards a coordinated research programme mechanistically linking biodiversity and ecological stability. As such, we are launching a research community interested in the science and application of response diversity – the Response Diversity Network – whose activities we hope will benefit both individual studies of response diversity and globally coordinated research efforts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oikos
Published
2026-01-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/oik.11358
Primary Topic
Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

Expert‐led priorities for a response diversity research agenda in ecology

T. Sasaki, Ceres Barros, Anna LoPresti, Hannah J. White et al.
Oikos
Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
article

Expert‐led priorities for a response diversity research agenda in ecology

T. Sasaki, Ceres Barros, Anna LoPresti, Hannah J. White, Mike S. Fowler, Laura Dee, Owen L. Petchey, Samuel R. P.‐J. Ross
article en

Abstract

Response diversity describes variation in ecological responses to environmental change. Response diversity is expected to drive ecological stability since a wider variety of responses to one or more environmental factors should stabilise fluctuations of ecosystem functions. However, uptake of empirical response diversity research has been slow. Here we assess current thinking around response diversity by conducting a targeted expert survey of response diversity researchers. Our survey revealed that one barrier to a unified research agenda on response diversity is the lack of agreement among respondents on the definition of response diversity, and to which dimension(s) of ecological stability response diversity might relate. When asked to select the temporal, spatial and biological scales at which response diversity may be most relevant for ecological stability, respondents chose a wide range of scales indicating differences in how experts view response diversity's stabilising effect. Respondents considered studies incorporating both biotic interactions and abiotic environmental responses to be especially challenging. So too were those thinking about responses to multiple environmental changes simultaneously. Moreover, respondents thought inconsistencies in the definitions of, and methods for measuring response diversity were a major challenge facing the field. Despite these barriers, experts expressed strong support for globally coordinated research efforts on response diversity through syntheses, workshops, and distributed experiments. However, they also cautioned that imposing a single standardised metric across use‐cases would be too restrictive. Our findings suggest we can shift response diversity from a loose collection of conceptual studies and inconsistent empirical applications towards a coordinated research programme mechanistically linking biodiversity and ecological stability. As such, we are launching a research community interested in the science and application of response diversity – the Response Diversity Network – whose activities we hope will benefit both individual studies of response diversity and globally coordinated research efforts.

OikosVol. 2026(3)
Canadian Forest Service (CA), Natural Resources Canada (CA), University of British Columbia (CA), Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (JP), Yokohama National University (JP), University of Colorado Boulder (US), University of Zurich (CH), Swansea University (GB), Anglia Ruskin University (GB)
Anglia Ruskin University, Ecological Society of America, British Ecological Society, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
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.