Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes

It remains unclear whether biodiversity buffers ecosystems against climate extremes, which are becoming increasingly frequent worldwide. Early results suggested that the ecosystem productivity of diverse grassland plant communities was more resistant, changing less during drought, and more resilient, recovering more quickly after drought, than that of depauperate communities. However, subsequent experimental tests produced mixed results. Here we use data from 46 experiments that manipulated grassland plant diversity to test whether biodiversity provides resistance during and resilience after climate events. We show that biodiversity increased ecosystem resistance for a broad range of climate events, including wet or dry, moderate or extreme, and brief or prolonged events. Across all studies and climate events, the productivity of low-diversity communities with one or two species changed by approximately 50% during climate events, whereas that of high-diversity communities with 16–32 species was more resistant, changing by only approximately 25%. By a year after each climate event, ecosystem productivity had often fully recovered, or overshot, normal levels of productivity in both high- and low-diversity communities, leading to no detectable dependence of ecosystem resilience on biodiversity. Our results suggest that biodiversity mainly stabilizes ecosystem productivity, and productivity-dependent ecosystem services, by increasing resistance to climate events. Anthropogenic environmental changes that drive biodiversity loss thus seem likely to decrease ecosystem stability, and restoration of biodiversity to increase it, mainly by changing the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate events.

A proposed framework to operationalize ESS for the mitigation of soil threats

Despite various research activities in the last decades across the world, many challenges remain to integrate the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) in decision-making, and a coherent approach to assess and value ESS is still lacking. There are a lot of different – often context-specific – ESS frameworks with their own definitions and understanding of terms. Based on a thorough review, the EU FP7 project RECARE (www.recare-project.eu) suggests an adapted framework for ecosystem services related to soils that can be used for practical application in preventing and remediating degradation of soils in Europe. This lays the foundation for the development and selection of appropriate methods to measure, evaluate, communicate and negotiate the services we obtain from soils with stakeholders in order to improve land management. Similar to many ESS frameworks, the RECARE framework distinguishes between an ecosystem and human well-being part. As the RECARE project is focused on soil threats, this is the starting point on the ecosystem part of the framework. Soil threats affect natural capital, such as soil, water, vegetation, air and animals, and are in turn influenced by those. Within the natural capital, the RECARE framework focuses especially on soil and its properties, classified in inherent and manageable properties. The natural capital then enables and underpins soil processes, while at the same time being affected by those. Soil processes, finally, are the ecosystem’s capacity to provide services, thus they support the provision of soil functions and ESS. ESS may be utilized to produce benefits for individuals and human society. Those benefits are explicitly or implicitly valued by individuals and human society. The values placed on those benefits influence policy and decision-making and thus lead to a societal response. Individual (e.g. farmers’) and societal decision making and policy determine land management and other (human) driving forces, which in turn affect soil threats and natural capital. In order to improve ESS with Sustainable Land Management (SLM) – i.e. measures aimed to prevent or remediate soil threats, the services identified in the framework need to be “manageable” (modifiable) for the stakeholders. To this end, effects of soil threats and prevention / remediation measures are captured by key soil properties as well as through bio-physical (e.g. reduced soil loss), socio-economic (e.g. reduced workload) and socio-cultural (e.g. aesthetics) impact indicators. In order to use such indicators in RECARE, it should be possible to associate the changes in soil processes to impacts of prevention / remediation measures (SLM). This requires the indicators to be sensitive enough to small changes, but still sufficiently robust to provide evidence of the change and attribute it to SLM.

The association of feeding behavior with the resistance and tolerance to parasites in recently diverged sticklebacks

Divergent natural selection regimes can contribute to adaptive population divergence, but can be sensitive to human-mediated environmental change. Nutrient loading of aquatic ecosystems, for example, might modify selection pressures by altering the abundance and distribution of resources and the prevalence and infectivity of parasites. Here, we used a mesocosm experiment to test for interactive effects of nutrient loading and parasitism on host condition and feeding ecology. Specifically, we investigated whether the common fish parasite Gyrodactylus sp. differentially affected recently diverged lake and stream ecotypes of three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). We found that the stream ecotype had a higher resistance to Gyrodactylus sp. infections than the lake ecotype, and that both ecotypes experienced a cost of parasitism, indicated by negative relationships between parasite load and both stomach fullness and body condition. Overall, our results suggest that in the early stages of adaptive population divergence of hosts, parasites can affect host resistance, body condition, and diet.