New plant ecology study challenges conventional wisdom

Sep 26, 2011
Ecologists monitored diverse grassland sites on five continents to challenge the prevailing belief about habitat productivity. (Dan Gruner/University of Maryland photo)

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of 58 ecologists, including UC Davis researcher Louie Yang, has found that habitat productivity does not predict the quantity or diversity of plant species, as has been assumed for several decades.

The groundbreaking research, published today in the journal Science, shows "no clear relationship between productivity and the number of plant species in small study plots," said Utah State University plant Peter Adler, lead author of the paper.

Productivity refers to the amount of biomass, or , that a habitat yields.

The findings challenge a prevailing model, developed in the early 1970s by British ecologist J. Philip Grime, which proposed that the number of rises and then declines with increasing productivity.

Not generally so, says the new study. The ecologists sampled 48 diverse grassland sites on five continents in a novel project, partially supported by the National Science Foundation.

The Science paper is one of the first to emerge from the research launched five years ago with the formation of Nutrient Network, http://nutnet.science.oregonstate.edu, a cooperative research initiative dedicated to investigating biodiversity and in global grasslands.

“It’s a really innovative approach to ecology,” said Yang, an assistant professor in the Department of Entomology. “We conducted a coordinated study in diverse at the 48 sites and we pooled our data together to address some persistent issues in the field.

“In this paper, we show that plant diversity is not predicted by productivity in any general or simple way; instead, it looks like patterns of plant diversity result from more complex processes, which are variable at local, regional and global scales.”

Yang’s research contributions to the network came from a field site at UC Berkeley’s Sagehen Creek Field Station, located near Truckee in Nevada County. He and University of Maryland researcher Dan Gruner have managed a montane, or highland meadows, research site there since 2007.

Future research may target factors regulating biodiversity, such as evolutionary history, disturbance and resource supply, the researchers said.

Explore further: Study shows the factors influencing which conservation news get shared on social media

Related Stories

Too much water, fertilizer bad for plant diversity

Mar 26, 2007

Too much of multiple good things -- water or nutrients, for example -- may decrease the diversity of plant life in an ecosystem while increasing the productivity of a few species, a UC Irvine scientist has discovered.

Recommended for you

Hundreds of starving koalas killed in Australia

3 hours ago

Close to 700 koalas have been killed off by authorities in southeastern Australia because overpopulation led to the animals starving, an official said Wednesday, sparking claims of mismanagement.

World's wildlife critical to the economies of nations

23 hours ago

Wildlife is critical to the economies of nations. New Zealand's wildlife – whales, dolphins, red deer, thar, albatross, kiwi, tuatara, fish and kauri – attract tourists. And the tourists who come to see ...

Modern methods lead the way toward a rhino rebound

23 hours ago

Cutting-edge technology and techniques have become essential tools in the effort to save rhinos. Micro chips, translocation and consumer campaigns are helping shift the balance against record-setting poaching ...

The water trading strategies of plants

Mar 03, 2015

Plants trade water for carbon – every litre of water that they extract from the soil allows them to take up a few more grams of carbon from the atmosphere to use in growth. A new global study, led by Australian ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Who_Wants_to_Know
not rated yet Sep 26, 2011
Silly me. And here I thought that conducting scientific research was all about things like knowing the merits and defects of all the other research out there about the subject of interest, being skeptical of claims and ensuring that they're well verified before buying into them, building on other scientists work, designing a falsifiable experiment able to prove your hypothesis had merit, collecting real world data during that experiment, analysing it, then if meaningful, putting your results and conclusions out there for others to then replicate, verify and validate - or refute. Upon which the cycle begins again.

Apparently that's innovative to the science of ecology, however.

At least these folks DID apparently use a scientific approach, thus overturning what from the sounds of it was unsubstantiated dogma for the last few decades - at least wrt this issue.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.