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: Speckled beetle key to saving crops in Ethiopia

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

Speckled beetle key to saving crops in Ethiopia

21 hours ago

(Phys.org) —An invasive weed poses a serious and frightening threat to farming families in Ethiopia, but scientists from a Virginia Tech-led program have unleashed a new weapon in the fight against hunger: ...

New tool to assess noise impact on marine mammals

21 hours ago

A new desktop tool which will allow offshore renewable energy developers to assess the likely impacts of their projects on marine mammal populations has been developed by scientists at the University of St ...

Of bees, mites, and viruses

Aug 21, 2014

Honeybee colonies are dying at alarming rates worldwide. A variety of factors have been proposed to explain their decline, but the exact cause—and how bees can be saved—remains unclear. An article published on August ...

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.