The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does functional redundancy affect ecological stability and resilience? A review and meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
In light of rapid shifts in biodiversity associated with human impacts, there is an urgent need to understand how changing patterns in biodiversity impact ecosystem function. Functional redundancy is hypothesized to promote ecological resilience and stability, as ecosystem function of communities with more redundant species (those that perform similar functions) should be buffered against the loss of individual species. While functional redundancy is being increasingly quantified, few studies have linked differences in redundancy across communities to ecological outcomes. We conducted a review and meta‐analysis to determine whether empirical evidence supports the asserted link between functional redundancy and ecosystem stability and resilience. We reviewed 423 research articles and assembled a data set of 32 studies from 15 articles across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Overall, the mean correlation between functional redundancy and ecological stability/resilience was positive. The mean positive effect of functional redundancy was greater for studies in which redundancy was measured as species richness within functional groups (vs. metrics independent of species richness), but species richness itself was not correlated with effect size. The results of this meta‐analysis indicate that functional redundancy may positively affect community stability and resilience to disturbance, but more empirical work is needed including more experimental studies, partitioning of richness and redundancy effects, and links to ecosystem functions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11148 · Cited by 7,457 · cited 1×
“Humans are drastically altering the composition of ecological communities globally (Dornelas et al. 2014, Elahi et al. 2015), which has cascading impacts on associated ecological functions and services (Cardinale et al. 2012).”
BackgroundBiodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D. U., Huston, M. A., Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1064088 · Cited by 4,649
Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H. K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., et al. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1132294 · Cited by 4,544
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253 · Cited by 4,220
Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00027.x · Cited by 3,835 · cited 1×
“Modeled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around our estimates (confint function in R; Nakagawa and Cuthill 2007) were backtransformed from Fisher’s z to r by taking the hyperbolic tangent of the estimate (Rosenberg et al. 2013).”
MethodPartitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments
Loreau, M., & Hector, A. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35083573 · Cited by 3,528
Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes
Dı́az, S., & Cabido, M. (2001) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02283-2 · Cited by 3,306
Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward
Petchey, O. L., & Gaston, K. J. (2006) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00924.x · Cited by 2,571
Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services
Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K., & Mirotchnick, N. (2011) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02048.x · Cited by 2,396 · cited 1×
“Thus, the conservation of functional redundancy may be an important goal for managing stable and resilient ecosystem services (Neeam 1998, Cadotte et al. 2011).”
Background
Cited by
Pavoine, S., & Ricotta, C. (2024) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.70045 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Biggs, C. R., Yeager, L. A., Bolser, D. G., Bonsell, C., Dichiera, A. M., Hou, Z., Keyser, S. R., Khursigara, A. J., Lu, K., Muth, A. F., Negrete, B., & Erisman, B. E.
- Venue
- Ecosphere
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- ISSN
- 2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3041672410
- Cited by
- 624
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 28.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does functional redundancy affect ecological stability and resilience? A review and meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ecs2.3184
- The paper
- Biggs, C. R., Yeager, L. A., Bolser, D. G., Bonsell, C., Dichiera, A. M., Hou, Z., Keyser, S. R., Khursigara, A. J., Lu, K., Muth, A. F., Negrete, B., & Erisman, B. E. (2020). Does functional redundancy affect ecological stability and resilience? A review and meta‐analysis. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3184
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.