Cited by 1,065Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsPlant and animal studies

The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic complexity

Open access
Duffy, J. Emmett, Cardinale, Bradley J., France, Kristin E., McIntyre, Peter B., Thébault, Elisa, Loreau, Michel·2007·Ecology Letters

Abstract

Understanding how biodiversity affects functioning of ecosystems requires integrating diversity within trophic levels (horizontal diversity) and across trophic levels (vertical diversity, including food chain length and omnivory). We review theoretical and experimental progress toward this goal. Generally, experiments show that biomass and resource use increase similarly with horizontal diversity of either producers or consumers. Among prey, higher diversity often increases resistance to predation, due to increased probability of including inedible species and reduced efficiency of specialist predators confronted with diverse prey. Among predators, changing diversity can cascade to affect plant biomass, but the strength and sign of this effect depend on the degree of omnivory and prey behaviour. Horizontal and vertical diversity also interact: adding a trophic level can qualitatively change diversity effects at adjacent levels. Multitrophic interactions produce a richer variety of diversity‐functioning relationships than the monotonic changes predicted for single trophic levels. This complexity depends on the degree of consumer dietary generalism, trade‐offs between competitive ability and resistance to predation, intraguild predation and openness to migration. Although complementarity and selection effects occur in both animals and plants, few studies have conclusively documented the mechanisms mediating diversity effects. Understanding how biodiversity affects functioning of complex ecosystems will benefit from integrating theory and experiments with simulations and network‐based approaches.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01037.x

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Loss of one or a few top predator species can reduce plant biomass by at least as much as does the transformation of a diverse plant assemblage into a species monoculture.

    “Loss of one or a few top predator species can reduce plant biomass by at least as much 52 as does the transformation of a diverse plant assemblage into a species monoculture 12”

    From Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (2012) · cites this paper as [52]

    The opening passage (indexed as Abstract; page unavailable) describes predator loss cascading to plants, including sea-otter loss followed by kelp overgrazing. The Empirical results section also reports cases where greater predator diversity increased plant performance. But this source does not establish that losing one or a few predators reduces plant biomass by at least as much as converting a diverse plant assemblage to a monoculture; the monoculture comparison has a separate citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The finding of stronger herbivore effects supports conceptual predictions that biodiversity loss should have greater consequences for higher trophic levels, in part because animals typically utilize more diverse resource pools and have more complex behaviours than plants.

    “This finding supports conceptual predictions that biodiversity loss should have greater consequences for higher trophic levels, in part because animals typically utilize more diverse resource pools and have more complex behaviours than do plants”
  • Because different trophic groups can have complementary or opposing functional effects, studies of single taxa cannot reliably predict the functional consequences of biodiversity loss across multiple groups.

    “The functional consequences of biodiversity declines across multiple trophic groups are hard to predict from studies focusing on single taxa, as the functional effects of different groups may complement or oppose each other 5,6,9,10 .”
  • Negative relationships might result from interference among species within a trophic group or from compositional shifts that reduce ecosystem functioning.

    “Negative relationships might be explained by interference between species within a given trophic group 10 , or compositional shifts leading to declines in ecosystem functioning 17,20,29 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [35]35. Hillebrand, H. & Shurin, J. (2005). In: Aquatic Food Webs (eds Belgrano, A., Scharler, U.M., JDunne, J. & Ulanowicz, R.E.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 184-197.
  2. [81]81. Terborgh, J., Estes, J.A., Paquet, P., Ralls, K., Boyd-Heger, D., Miller, B.J. et al. (1999). The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In: Continental Conservation (eds Soule ´, M.E. & Terborgh, J.). Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 39-64.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duffy, J. E., Cardinale, B. J., France, K. E., McIntyre, P. B., Thébault, E., & Loreau, M.
Affiliations
  • William & Mary (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Wright State University (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-04-23
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
522-538
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2146616239
Cited by
1,065
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 46
FWCI
42.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • W&M Publish (College of William & Mary) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
Keywords
biodiversity-ecosystem functioning, trophic complexity, vertical diversity, food chain length, omnivory, multitrophic interactions, complementarity effects, selection effects, intraguild predation, plant biomass, resource utilization (natural resources)
MeSH terms
Species Specificity, Ecosystem

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