Plant–soil feedbacks help explain plant community productivity

Plant productivity often increases with species richness, but the mechanisms explaining this diversity–productivity relationship are not fully understood. We tested if plant–soil feedbacks (PSF) can help to explain how biomass production changes with species richness. Using a greenhouse experiment,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecology (Durham) 2022-09, Vol.103 (9), p.e3736-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Forero, Leslie E., Kulmatiski, Andrew, Grenzer, Josephine, Norton, Jeanette
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 9
container_start_page e3736
container_title Ecology (Durham)
container_volume 103
creator Forero, Leslie E.
Kulmatiski, Andrew
Grenzer, Josephine
Norton, Jeanette
description Plant productivity often increases with species richness, but the mechanisms explaining this diversity–productivity relationship are not fully understood. We tested if plant–soil feedbacks (PSF) can help to explain how biomass production changes with species richness. Using a greenhouse experiment, we measured all 240 possible PSFs for 16 plant species. At the same time, 49 plant communities with diversities ranging from one to 16 species were grown in replicated pots. A suite of plant community growth models, parameterized with (PSF) or without PSF (Null) effects, was used to predict plant growth observed in the communities. Selection effects and complementarity effects in modeled and observed data were separated. Plants created soils that increased or decreased subsequent plant growth by 25% ± 10%, but because PSFs were negative for C3 and C4 grasses, neutral for forbs, and positive for legumes, the net effect of all PSFs was a 2% ± 17% decrease in plant growth. Experimental plant communities with 16 species produced 37% more biomass than monocultures due to complementarity. Null models incorrectly predicted that 16‐species communities would overyield due to selection effects. Adding PSF effects to Null models decreased selection effects, increased complementarity effects, and improved correlations between observed and predicted community biomass. PSF models predicted 26% of overyielding caused by complementarity observed in experimental communities. Relative to Null models, PSF models improved the predictions of the magnitude and mechanism of the diversity–productivity relationship. Results provide clear support for PSFs as one of several mechanisms that determine diversity–productivity relationships and help close the gap in understanding how biodiversity enhances ecosystem services such as biomass production.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ecy.3736
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2655103516</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2708655967</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3496-c9f10aba0af11ba59208c44bd0d7882e73d7c68d84f2f9e9845b235dd5277da43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKxDAUhoMozjgKPoEU3LjpmGuT7JRhvMCALnThKqRJih17s2nV7nwH39AnMeN4AcGzORz4-M7PD8A-glMEIT52ZpgSTpINMEaSyFgiDjfBGEKEY5kwMQI73i9hGETFNhgRRhNMkRiDk-tCV93765uv8yLKnLOpNg8-undFE7mXptB5FTUrJjJ1WfZV3g1R09a2N13-FI5dsJXpwru9rz0Bt2fzm9lFvLg6v5ydLmJDqExiIzMEdaqhzhBKNZMYCkNpaqHlQmDHieUmEVbQDGfSSUFZigmzlmHOraZkAo7W3vD8sXe-U2XujStCNFf3XuGEMQQJQ0lAD_-gy7pvq5BOYQ5FAGXCf4Wmrb1vXaaaNi91OygE1apVFVpVq1YDevAl7NPS2R_wu8YAxGvgOS_c8K9IzWd3n8IPmT6A3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2708655967</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Plant–soil feedbacks help explain plant community productivity</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Forero, Leslie E. ; Kulmatiski, Andrew ; Grenzer, Josephine ; Norton, Jeanette</creator><creatorcontrib>Forero, Leslie E. ; Kulmatiski, Andrew ; Grenzer, Josephine ; Norton, Jeanette</creatorcontrib><description>Plant productivity often increases with species richness, but the mechanisms explaining this diversity–productivity relationship are not fully understood. We tested if plant–soil feedbacks (PSF) can help to explain how biomass production changes with species richness. Using a greenhouse experiment, we measured all 240 possible PSFs for 16 plant species. At the same time, 49 plant communities with diversities ranging from one to 16 species were grown in replicated pots. A suite of plant community growth models, parameterized with (PSF) or without PSF (Null) effects, was used to predict plant growth observed in the communities. Selection effects and complementarity effects in modeled and observed data were separated. Plants created soils that increased or decreased subsequent plant growth by 25% ± 10%, but because PSFs were negative for C3 and C4 grasses, neutral for forbs, and positive for legumes, the net effect of all PSFs was a 2% ± 17% decrease in plant growth. Experimental plant communities with 16 species produced 37% more biomass than monocultures due to complementarity. Null models incorrectly predicted that 16‐species communities would overyield due to selection effects. Adding PSF effects to Null models decreased selection effects, increased complementarity effects, and improved correlations between observed and predicted community biomass. PSF models predicted 26% of overyielding caused by complementarity observed in experimental communities. Relative to Null models, PSF models improved the predictions of the magnitude and mechanism of the diversity–productivity relationship. Results provide clear support for PSFs as one of several mechanisms that determine diversity–productivity relationships and help close the gap in understanding how biodiversity enhances ecosystem services such as biomass production.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ecy.3736</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35462418</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Biodiversity ; biodiversity–productivity ; Biomass ; Complementarity ; complementarity effect ; Ecosystem services ; Forbs ; Growth models ; Legumes ; Monoculture ; overyielding ; Plant communities ; Plant growth ; Plant populations ; Plant species ; plant–soil feedback ; Productivity ; selection effect ; Soils ; Species richness ; underyielding</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 2022-09, Vol.103 (9), p.e3736-n/a</ispartof><rights>2022 The Ecological Society of America.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3496-c9f10aba0af11ba59208c44bd0d7882e73d7c68d84f2f9e9845b235dd5277da43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3496-c9f10aba0af11ba59208c44bd0d7882e73d7c68d84f2f9e9845b235dd5277da43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9577-8725 ; 0000-0002-2223-0566 ; 0000-0002-6596-8691 ; 0000-0001-9977-5508</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fecy.3736$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fecy.3736$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35462418$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Forero, Leslie E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulmatiski, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grenzer, Josephine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norton, Jeanette</creatorcontrib><title>Plant–soil feedbacks help explain plant community productivity</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><description>Plant productivity often increases with species richness, but the mechanisms explaining this diversity–productivity relationship are not fully understood. We tested if plant–soil feedbacks (PSF) can help to explain how biomass production changes with species richness. Using a greenhouse experiment, we measured all 240 possible PSFs for 16 plant species. At the same time, 49 plant communities with diversities ranging from one to 16 species were grown in replicated pots. A suite of plant community growth models, parameterized with (PSF) or without PSF (Null) effects, was used to predict plant growth observed in the communities. Selection effects and complementarity effects in modeled and observed data were separated. Plants created soils that increased or decreased subsequent plant growth by 25% ± 10%, but because PSFs were negative for C3 and C4 grasses, neutral for forbs, and positive for legumes, the net effect of all PSFs was a 2% ± 17% decrease in plant growth. Experimental plant communities with 16 species produced 37% more biomass than monocultures due to complementarity. Null models incorrectly predicted that 16‐species communities would overyield due to selection effects. Adding PSF effects to Null models decreased selection effects, increased complementarity effects, and improved correlations between observed and predicted community biomass. PSF models predicted 26% of overyielding caused by complementarity observed in experimental communities. Relative to Null models, PSF models improved the predictions of the magnitude and mechanism of the diversity–productivity relationship. Results provide clear support for PSFs as one of several mechanisms that determine diversity–productivity relationships and help close the gap in understanding how biodiversity enhances ecosystem services such as biomass production.</description><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>biodiversity–productivity</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Complementarity</subject><subject>complementarity effect</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Forbs</subject><subject>Growth models</subject><subject>Legumes</subject><subject>Monoculture</subject><subject>overyielding</subject><subject>Plant communities</subject><subject>Plant growth</subject><subject>Plant populations</subject><subject>Plant species</subject><subject>plant–soil feedback</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>selection effect</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>Species richness</subject><subject>underyielding</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtKxDAUhoMozjgKPoEU3LjpmGuT7JRhvMCALnThKqRJih17s2nV7nwH39AnMeN4AcGzORz4-M7PD8A-glMEIT52ZpgSTpINMEaSyFgiDjfBGEKEY5kwMQI73i9hGETFNhgRRhNMkRiDk-tCV93765uv8yLKnLOpNg8-undFE7mXptB5FTUrJjJ1WfZV3g1R09a2N13-FI5dsJXpwru9rz0Bt2fzm9lFvLg6v5ydLmJDqExiIzMEdaqhzhBKNZMYCkNpaqHlQmDHieUmEVbQDGfSSUFZigmzlmHOraZkAo7W3vD8sXe-U2XujStCNFf3XuGEMQQJQ0lAD_-gy7pvq5BOYQ5FAGXCf4Wmrb1vXaaaNi91OygE1apVFVpVq1YDevAl7NPS2R_wu8YAxGvgOS_c8K9IzWd3n8IPmT6A3g</recordid><startdate>202209</startdate><enddate>202209</enddate><creator>Forero, Leslie E.</creator><creator>Kulmatiski, Andrew</creator><creator>Grenzer, Josephine</creator><creator>Norton, Jeanette</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9577-8725</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2223-0566</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6596-8691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9977-5508</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202209</creationdate><title>Plant–soil feedbacks help explain plant community productivity</title><author>Forero, Leslie E. ; Kulmatiski, Andrew ; Grenzer, Josephine ; Norton, Jeanette</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3496-c9f10aba0af11ba59208c44bd0d7882e73d7c68d84f2f9e9845b235dd5277da43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>biodiversity–productivity</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Complementarity</topic><topic>complementarity effect</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Forbs</topic><topic>Growth models</topic><topic>Legumes</topic><topic>Monoculture</topic><topic>overyielding</topic><topic>Plant communities</topic><topic>Plant growth</topic><topic>Plant populations</topic><topic>Plant species</topic><topic>plant–soil feedback</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>selection effect</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>Species richness</topic><topic>underyielding</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Forero, Leslie E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kulmatiski, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grenzer, Josephine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norton, Jeanette</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Forero, Leslie E.</au><au>Kulmatiski, Andrew</au><au>Grenzer, Josephine</au><au>Norton, Jeanette</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Plant–soil feedbacks help explain plant community productivity</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><date>2022-09</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>103</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e3736</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e3736-n/a</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><abstract>Plant productivity often increases with species richness, but the mechanisms explaining this diversity–productivity relationship are not fully understood. We tested if plant–soil feedbacks (PSF) can help to explain how biomass production changes with species richness. Using a greenhouse experiment, we measured all 240 possible PSFs for 16 plant species. At the same time, 49 plant communities with diversities ranging from one to 16 species were grown in replicated pots. A suite of plant community growth models, parameterized with (PSF) or without PSF (Null) effects, was used to predict plant growth observed in the communities. Selection effects and complementarity effects in modeled and observed data were separated. Plants created soils that increased or decreased subsequent plant growth by 25% ± 10%, but because PSFs were negative for C3 and C4 grasses, neutral for forbs, and positive for legumes, the net effect of all PSFs was a 2% ± 17% decrease in plant growth. Experimental plant communities with 16 species produced 37% more biomass than monocultures due to complementarity. Null models incorrectly predicted that 16‐species communities would overyield due to selection effects. Adding PSF effects to Null models decreased selection effects, increased complementarity effects, and improved correlations between observed and predicted community biomass. PSF models predicted 26% of overyielding caused by complementarity observed in experimental communities. Relative to Null models, PSF models improved the predictions of the magnitude and mechanism of the diversity–productivity relationship. Results provide clear support for PSFs as one of several mechanisms that determine diversity–productivity relationships and help close the gap in understanding how biodiversity enhances ecosystem services such as biomass production.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>35462418</pmid><doi>10.1002/ecy.3736</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9577-8725</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2223-0566</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6596-8691</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9977-5508</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-9658
ispartof Ecology (Durham), 2022-09, Vol.103 (9), p.e3736-n/a
issn 0012-9658
1939-9170
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2655103516
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Biodiversity
biodiversity–productivity
Biomass
Complementarity
complementarity effect
Ecosystem services
Forbs
Growth models
Legumes
Monoculture
overyielding
Plant communities
Plant growth
Plant populations
Plant species
plant–soil feedback
Productivity
selection effect
Soils
Species richness
underyielding
title Plant–soil feedbacks help explain plant community productivity
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T00%3A41%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Plant%E2%80%93soil%20feedbacks%20help%20explain%20plant%20community%20productivity&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Forero,%20Leslie%20E.&rft.date=2022-09&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e3736&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e3736-n/a&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ecy.3736&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2708655967%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2708655967&rft_id=info:pmid/35462418&rfr_iscdi=true