Cited by 258Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics

Long‐term study of root biomass in a biodiversity experiment reveals shifts in diversity effects over time

Open access
Ravenek, Janneke M., Bessler, Holger, Engels, Christof, Scherer‐Lorenzen, Michael, Gessler, Arthur, Gockele, Annette, De Luca, Enrica, Temperton, Vicky M. +8 more·2014·Oikos

Abstract

Biodiversity experiments generally report a positive effect of plant biodiversity on aboveground biomass (overyielding), which typically increases with time. Various studies also found overyielding for belowground plant biomass, but this has never been measured over time. Also, potential underlying mechanisms have remained unclear. Differentiation in rooting patterns among plant species and plant functional groups has been proposed as a main driver of the observed biodiversity effect on belowground biomass, leading to more efficient belowground resource use with increasing diversity, but so far there is little evidence to support this. We analyzed standing root biomass and its distribution over the soil profile, along a 1–16 species richness gradient over eight years in the Jena Experiment in Germany, and compared belowground to aboveground overyielding. In our long‐term dataset, total root biomass increased with increasing species richness but this effect was only apparent after four years. The increasingly positive relationship between species richness and root biomass, explaining 12% of overall variation and up to 28% in the last year of our study, was mainly due to decreasing root biomass at low diversity over time. Functional group composition strongly affected total standing root biomass, explaining 44% of variation, with grasses and legumes having strong overall positive and negative effects, respectively. Functional group richness or interactions between functional group presences did not strongly contribute to overyielding. We found no support for the hypothesis that vertical root differentiation increases with species richness, with functional group richness or composition. Other explanations, such as stronger negative plant–soil feedbacks in low‐diverse plant communities on standing root biomass and vertical distribution should be considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/oik.01502

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ravenek, J. M., Bessler, H., Engels, C., Scherer‐Lorenzen, M., Gessler, A., Gockele, A., De Luca, E., Temperton, V. M., Ebeling, A., Roscher, C., Schmid, B., Weisser, W. W., Wirth, C., de Kroon, H., Weigelt, A., & Mommer, L.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH)
  • Inst. of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, Univ. of Zürich Winterthurerstrasse 190 CH‐8057 Zürich Switzerland
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
  • Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE)
  • Dept of Experimental Plant Ecology Inst. for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud Univ. Heyendaalseweg 135 NL‐6525 AJ Nijmegen the Netherlands
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-04
Volume
123
Issue
12
Pages
1528-1536
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2104193931
Cited by
258
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 4
FWCI
26.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Oikos (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • DORA WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) (submittedVersion)
  • JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Keywords
plant diversity, root biomass, species richness, overyielding, belowground biomass, aboveground biomass, plant functional groups, Poaceae, Fabaceae, vertical root distribution, plant-soil feedback, Jena Experiment

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