A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review
In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of ecology 2021-02, Vol.109 (2), p.600-613 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 613 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 600 |
container_title | The Journal of ecology |
container_volume | 109 |
creator | Garland, Gina Banerjee, Samiran Edlinger, Anna Miranda Oliveira, Emily Herzog, Chantal Wittwer, Raphaël Philippot, Laurent Maestre, Fernando T. Heijden, Marcel G. A. Hector, Andrew |
description | In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions.
To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe.
The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning.
Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.
In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermo |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1365-2745.13511 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03274499v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2487270544</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkL1PwzAQxS0EEqUws1piYkh7dux8sEVVoaBILDBbjmOrLmld7LRV_nsSAqzcctLd7z3dPYRuCcxIX3MSJzyiKeMzEnNCztDkb3KOJgCURsDS9BJdhbABgCTlMEFlgVXjgva4ce4Dyxa3a43NYada63YBV3ptdzXWyoUutHqLt4emtb972di2e8AF9vpo9ekaXRjZBH3z06fo_XH5tlhF5evT86IoIxXnQCKTmbjKKM9kBiRJieYyYaZm1GScsJwTYxKWSwoElDE10VQxVvNKJ4mq4qqKp-h-9F3LRuy93UrfCSetWBWlGGYQ92-zPD-Snr0b2b13nwcdWrFxB99fHgRlWUpT4Iz11HyklHcheG3-bAmIIV4xhCmGMMV3vL2Cj4qTbXT3Hy5elotR9wWHFnrB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2487270544</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Garland, Gina ; Banerjee, Samiran ; Edlinger, Anna ; Miranda Oliveira, Emily ; Herzog, Chantal ; Wittwer, Raphaël ; Philippot, Laurent ; Maestre, Fernando T. ; Heijden, Marcel G. A. ; Hector, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Garland, Gina ; Banerjee, Samiran ; Edlinger, Anna ; Miranda Oliveira, Emily ; Herzog, Chantal ; Wittwer, Raphaël ; Philippot, Laurent ; Maestre, Fernando T. ; Heijden, Marcel G. A. ; Hector, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions.
To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe.
The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning.
Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.
In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Based on the literature analysis, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0477</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2745</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.13511</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Agricultural ecosystems ; agroecosystems ; Arid zones ; biodiversity ; drylands ; Ecosystem assessment ; ecosystem multifunctionality ; Ecosystem services ; Ecosystems ; Electromagnetic fields ; Environmental Sciences ; Forest ecosystems ; forests ; functions ; Grasslands ; Low frequency ; Mathematical analysis ; microbes ; Terrestrial ecosystems ; Terrestrial environments</subject><ispartof>The Journal of ecology, 2021-02, Vol.109 (2), p.600-613</ispartof><rights>2020 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>Journal of Ecology © 2021 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1402-0171 ; 0000-0001-7040-1924 ; 0000-0002-2129-7195 ; 0000-0002-7434-4856 ; 0000-0002-1657-3669 ; 0000-0003-3461-4492</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1365-2745.13511$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1365-2745.13511$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03274499$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Garland, Gina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banerjee, Samiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edlinger, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, Chantal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittwer, Raphaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Philippot, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maestre, Fernando T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hector, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</title><title>The Journal of ecology</title><description>In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions.
To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe.
The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning.
Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.
In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Based on the literature analysis, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.</description><subject>Agricultural ecosystems</subject><subject>agroecosystems</subject><subject>Arid zones</subject><subject>biodiversity</subject><subject>drylands</subject><subject>Ecosystem assessment</subject><subject>ecosystem multifunctionality</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Electromagnetic fields</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Forest ecosystems</subject><subject>forests</subject><subject>functions</subject><subject>Grasslands</subject><subject>Low frequency</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>microbes</subject><subject>Terrestrial ecosystems</subject><subject>Terrestrial environments</subject><issn>0022-0477</issn><issn>1365-2745</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkL1PwzAQxS0EEqUws1piYkh7dux8sEVVoaBILDBbjmOrLmld7LRV_nsSAqzcctLd7z3dPYRuCcxIX3MSJzyiKeMzEnNCztDkb3KOJgCURsDS9BJdhbABgCTlMEFlgVXjgva4ce4Dyxa3a43NYada63YBV3ptdzXWyoUutHqLt4emtb972di2e8AF9vpo9ekaXRjZBH3z06fo_XH5tlhF5evT86IoIxXnQCKTmbjKKM9kBiRJieYyYaZm1GScsJwTYxKWSwoElDE10VQxVvNKJ4mq4qqKp-h-9F3LRuy93UrfCSetWBWlGGYQ92-zPD-Snr0b2b13nwcdWrFxB99fHgRlWUpT4Iz11HyklHcheG3-bAmIIV4xhCmGMMV3vL2Cj4qTbXT3Hy5elotR9wWHFnrB</recordid><startdate>202102</startdate><enddate>202102</enddate><creator>Garland, Gina</creator><creator>Banerjee, Samiran</creator><creator>Edlinger, Anna</creator><creator>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</creator><creator>Herzog, Chantal</creator><creator>Wittwer, Raphaël</creator><creator>Philippot, Laurent</creator><creator>Maestre, Fernando T.</creator><creator>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</creator><creator>Hector, Andrew</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1402-0171</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7040-1924</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2129-7195</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-4856</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1657-3669</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-4492</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202102</creationdate><title>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</title><author>Garland, Gina ; Banerjee, Samiran ; Edlinger, Anna ; Miranda Oliveira, Emily ; Herzog, Chantal ; Wittwer, Raphaël ; Philippot, Laurent ; Maestre, Fernando T. ; Heijden, Marcel G. A. ; Hector, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Agricultural ecosystems</topic><topic>agroecosystems</topic><topic>Arid zones</topic><topic>biodiversity</topic><topic>drylands</topic><topic>Ecosystem assessment</topic><topic>ecosystem multifunctionality</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Electromagnetic fields</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Forest ecosystems</topic><topic>forests</topic><topic>functions</topic><topic>Grasslands</topic><topic>Low frequency</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>microbes</topic><topic>Terrestrial ecosystems</topic><topic>Terrestrial environments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Garland, Gina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banerjee, Samiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edlinger, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, Chantal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittwer, Raphaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Philippot, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maestre, Fernando T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hector, Andrew</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Garland, Gina</au><au>Banerjee, Samiran</au><au>Edlinger, Anna</au><au>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</au><au>Herzog, Chantal</au><au>Wittwer, Raphaël</au><au>Philippot, Laurent</au><au>Maestre, Fernando T.</au><au>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</au><au>Hector, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of ecology</jtitle><date>2021-02</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>109</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>600</spage><epage>613</epage><pages>600-613</pages><issn>0022-0477</issn><eissn>1365-2745</eissn><abstract>In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions.
To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe.
The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning.
Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.
In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Based on the literature analysis, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/1365-2745.13511</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1402-0171</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7040-1924</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2129-7195</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-4856</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1657-3669</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-4492</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-0477 |
ispartof | The Journal of ecology, 2021-02, Vol.109 (2), p.600-613 |
issn | 0022-0477 1365-2745 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03274499v1 |
source | Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Agricultural ecosystems agroecosystems Arid zones biodiversity drylands Ecosystem assessment ecosystem multifunctionality Ecosystem services Ecosystems Electromagnetic fields Environmental Sciences Forest ecosystems forests functions Grasslands Low frequency Mathematical analysis microbes Terrestrial ecosystems Terrestrial environments |
title | A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T23%3A38%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20closer%20look%20at%20the%20functions%20behind%20ecosystem%20multifunctionality:%20A%20review&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20ecology&rft.au=Garland,%20Gina&rft.date=2021-02&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=600&rft.epage=613&rft.pages=600-613&rft.issn=0022-0477&rft.eissn=1365-2745&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2745.13511&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2487270544%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2487270544&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |