CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8,046Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesEcosystem dynamics and resilience

EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE

Open access
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J. H., Lodge, D. M. +7 more·2005·Ecological Monographs
DOI 10.1890/04-0922
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans are altering the composition of biological communities through a variety of activities that increase rates of species invasions and species extinctions, at all scales, from local to global. These changes in components of the Earth's biodiversity cause concern for ethical and aesthetic reasons, but they also have a strong potential to alter ecosystem properties and the goods and services they provide to humanity. Ecological experiments, observations, and theoretical developments show that ecosystem properties depend greatly on biodiversity in terms of the functional characteristics of organisms present in the ecosystem and the distribution and abundance of those organisms over space and time. Species effects act in concert with the effects of climate, resource availability, and disturbance regimes in influencing ecosystem properties. Human activities can modify all of the above factors; here we focus on modification of these biotic controls. The scientific community has come to a broad consensus on many aspects of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, including many points relevant to management of ecosystems. Further progress will require integration of knowledge about biotic and abiotic controls on ecosystem properties, how ecological communities are structured, and the forces driving species extinctions and invasions. To strengthen links to policy and management, we also need to integrate our ecological knowledge with understanding of the social and economic constraints of potential management practices. Understanding this complexity, while taking strong steps to minimize current losses of species, is necessary for responsible management of Earth's ecosystems and the diverse biota they contain. Based on our review of the scientific literature, we are certain of the following conclusions: 1) Species' functional characteristics strongly influence ecosystem properties. Functional characteristics operate in a variety of contexts, including effects of dominant species, keystone species, ecological engineers, and interactions among species (e.g., competition, facilitation, mutualism, disease, and predation). Relative abundance alone is not always a good predictor of the ecosystem-level importance of a species, as even relatively rare species (e.g., a keystone predator) can strongly influence pathways of energy and material flows. 2) Alteration of biota in ecosystems via species invasions and extinctions caused by human activities has altered ecosystem goods and services in many well-documented cases. Many of these changes are difficult, expensive, or impossible to reverse or fix with technological solutions. 3) The effects of species loss or changes in composition, and the mechanisms by which the effects manifest themselves, can differ among ecosystem properties, ecosystem types, and pathways of potential community change. 4) Some ecosystem properties are initially insensitive to species loss because (a) ecosystems may have multiple species that carry out similar functional roles, (b) some species may contribute relatively little to ecosystem properties, or (c) properties may be primarily controlled by abiotic environmental conditions. 5) More species are needed to insure a stable supply of ecosystem goods and services as spatial and temporal variability increases, which typically occurs as longer time periods and larger areas are considered. We have high confidence in the following conclusions: 1) Certain combinations of species are complementary in their patterns of resource use and can increase average rates of productivity and nutrient retention. At the same time, environmental conditions can influence the importance of complementarity in structuring communities. Identification of which and how many species act in a complementary way in complex communities is just beginning. 2) Susceptibility to invasion by exotic species is strongly influenced by species composition and, under similar environmental conditions, generally decreases with increasing species richness. However, several other factors, such as propagule pressure, disturbance regime, and resource availability also strongly influence invasion success and often override effects of species richness in comparisons across different sites or ecosystems. 3) Having a range of species that respond differently to different environmental perturbations can stabilize ecosystem process rates in response to disturbances and variation in abiotic conditions. Using practices that maintain a diversity of organisms of different functional effect and functional response types will help preserve a range of management options. Uncertainties remain and further research is necessary in the following areas: 1) Further resolution of the relationships among taxonomic diversity, functional diversity, and community structure is important for identifying mechanisms of biodiversity effects. 2) Multiple trophic levels are common to ecosystems but

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 · 10.1890/04-0922

Cites

373 of 373 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?

  • The extent to which ecological functions change following extinction depends greatly on which biological traits are extirpated.

    “The extent to which ecological functions change following extinction depends greatly on which biological traits are extirpated 23,53”

    From Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (2012) · cites this paper as [23]

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: 41

  1. [6]6. Altieri, M. A. 1990. Why study traditional agriculture? Pages 551-564 in C. R. Carrol, J. H. Vandermeer, and P. M. Ros- set, editors. Agroecology. McGraw Hill, New York, New York, USA.
  2. [28]28. Cannell, M. G. R., D. C. Malcolm, and P. A. Robertson, editors. 1992. The ecology of mixed species stands. Black- well Scientific, Oxford, UK.
  3. [39]39. Chapin, F. S., III, H. Reynolds, C. D'Antonio, and V. Eckhart. 1996b. The functional role of species in terrestrial eco- systems. Pages 403-428 in B. Walker and W. Steffen, ed- itors. Global change in terrestrial ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  4. [49]49. Chesson, P., S. Pacala, and C. Neuhauser. 2002. Environ- mental niches and ecosystem functioning. Pages 213-245
  5. [50]50. in A. Kinzig, D. Tilman, and S. Pacala, editors. Functional consequences of biodiversity: experimental progress and theoretical extensions. Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, New Jersey, USA.
  6. [59]59. Cushman, J. H., R. Dirzo, A. C. Janetos, J. Lubchenco, H. A. Mooney, and O. E. Sala. 1995. Biodiversity and eco- system functioning: ecosystem analyses. Section 6.3, Con- clusions. Pages 446-452 in United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), editor. Global biodiversity assess- ment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  7. [60]60. Daily, G., editor. 1997. Nature's services. Societal depen- dence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  8. [61]61. D'Antonio, C. M. 2000. Fire, plant invasions, and global changes. Pages 65-94 in H. A. Mooney and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Covelo, California, USA.
  9. [66]66. Dias, B., S. Dı ´az, M. McGlone, A. Hector, D. A. Wardle, G. Ruark, H. Gitay, H. Toivonen, I. Thompson, K. J. Mulon- goy, P. Straka, and V. Burianek. 2003. Biodiversity: link- ages to climate change. Pages 24-37 in R. Watson and O. Berghal, editors. Interlinkages between biological diversity and climate change and advice on the integration of bio- diversity considerations into the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. Convention on Biological Diver- sity, Montreal, Canada.
  10. [95]95. Ewel, J. J. 1986. Designing agroecosystems for the humid tropics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17: 245-271.
  11. [100]100. Field, C. B. 1995. Productive capacity and biomass accu- mulation. Pages 402-406 in United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), editor. Global biodiversity assess- ment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  12. [128]128. Grime, J. P., J. G. Hodgson, R. Hunt, K. Thompson, G. A. F. Hendrey, B. D. Campbell, A. Jalili, S. H. Hillier, S. Diaz, and M. J. W. Burke. 1997a. Functional types: testing the concept in Northern England. Pages 122-152 in T. M . Smith, H. H. Shugart, and F. I. Woodward, editors. Plant functional types: their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK.
  13. [136]136. Hector, A. 2002. Biodiversity and the functioning of grass- land ecosystems: multi-site comparisons. Pages 71-95 in A. Kinzig, D. Tilman, and S. Pacala, editors. Functional consequences of biodiversity: experimental progress and theoretical extensions. Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, New Jersey, USA.
  14. [147]147. Holt, R. D., and M. Loreau. 2002. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: the role of trophic interactions and the im- portance of system openness. Pages 246-262 in A. P. Kin- zig, S. W. Pacala, and D. Tilman, editors. The functional consequences of biodiversity: empirical progress and the- February 2005 29
  15. [148]148. ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY oretical extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  16. [152]152. Hooper, D., D. Hawksworth, and S. Dhillion. 1995. Microbial diversity and ecosystem processes. Pages 433-443 in Unit- ed Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), editor. Glob- al biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  17. [168]168. Jenny, H. 1980. Soil genesis with ecological perspectives. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
  18. [177]177. Kinzig, A. P., S. W. Pacala, and D. Tilman, editors. 2002. The functional consequences of biodiversity: empirical pro- gress and theoretical extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  19. [181]181. Kunin, W. E., and J. H. Lawton. 1996. Does biodiversity matter? Evaluating the case for conserving species. Pages 283-308 in K. Gaston, editor. Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and differences. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
  20. [183]183. Landsberg, J. 1999. Response and effect: different reasons for classifying plant functional types under grazing. Pages 911-915 in D. Eldridge and D. Freudenberger, editors. Peo- ple and rangelands: building the future. Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress. VI International Rangeland Congress, Townsville, Australia.
  21. [207]207. Loreau, M., S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, editors. 2002b. Bio- diversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and per- spectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  22. [229]229. Mooney, H. A. 2002. The debate on the role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning. Pages 12-17 in M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, editors. Biodiversity and ecosys- tem functioning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  23. [239]239. Naeem, S. 2001. Experimental validity and ecological scale as tools for evaluating research programs. Pages 223-250
  24. [240]240. in R. H. Gardner, W. M. Kemp, V. S. Kennedy, and J. E. Petersen, editors. Scaling relationships in experimental ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.
  25. [248]248. Naylor, R. L., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1997. Natural pest control services and agriculture. Pages 151-174 in G. Daily, editor. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosys- tems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  26. [253]253. Noble, I. R., and I. C. Burke. 1995. Biodiversity and eco- system functioning: ecosystem analyses. Section 6.2.5: the influence of biodiversity on landscape structure. Pages 422-427 in United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), editor. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  27. [256]256. Ong, C. K., and C. R. Black. 1994. Complementarity of re- source use in intercropping and agroforestry systems. Pages 255-278 in J. L. Monteith, R. K. Scott, and M. H. Un- swerth, editors. Resource capture by crops. Proceedings of 52nd University of Nottingham Easter School. Nottingham University Press, Loughborough, UK.
  28. [292]292. Schenk, H. J., and R. B. Jackson. 2002. Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and belowground/aboveground allom- etries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 90:480-494.
  29. [298]298. Schmid, B., A. Hector, M. A. Huston, P. Inchausti, I. Nijs, P. W. Leadley, and D. Tilman. 2002a. The design and analysis of biodiversity experiments. Pages 61-75 in M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, editors. Biodiversity and ecosys- tem functioning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  30. [299]299. Schmid, B., J. Joshi, and F. Schla ¨pfer. 2002b. Empirical ev- idence for biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relation- ships. Pages 120-150 in A. Kinzig, D. Tilman, and S. Pa- cala, editors. Functional consequences of biodiversity: ex- perimental progress and theoretical extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  31. [302]302. ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY Schulze, E. D., and H. A. Mooney, editors. 1993. Biodiver- sity and ecosystem function. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Ger- many.
  32. [306]306. Silver, W. L., S. Brown, F. N. Scatena, and J. J. Ewel. 2001. Managed ecosystems deserve greater attention. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82:91-93.
  33. [308]308. Smith, T. M., H. H. Shugart, and F. I. Woodward, editors. 1997. Plant functional types: their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  34. [316]316. Stephan, A., A. H. Meyer, and B. Schmid. 2000. Plant di- versity positively affects soil bacterial diversity in exper- imental grassland ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 88:988- 998.
  35. [342]342. Tilman, D., J. Knops, D. Wedin, and P. Reich. 2002. Exper- imental and observational studies of diversity, productivity, and stability. Pages 42-70 in A. Kinzig, S. Pacala, and D. Tilman, editors. Functional consequences of biodiversity: Ecological Monographs Vol. 75, No. 1 empirical progress and theoretical extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  36. [349]349. Trenbath, B. R. 1999. Multispecies cropping systems in India. Pages 381-405 in E. C. Lefroy, R. J. Hobbs, M. H. O'Connor, and J. S. Pate, editors. Agriculture as a mimic of natural systems. Kluwer Academic, Dortrecht, The Neth- erlands.
  37. [357]357. Vandermeer, J. H. 1990. Intercropping. Pages 481-516 in C. R. Carrol, J. H. Vandermeer, and P. M. Rosset, editors. Agroecology. McGraw Hill, New York, New York, USA.
  38. [359]359. Vandermeer, J., D. Lawrence, A. Symstad, and S. Hobbie. 2002. Effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems. Pages 209-220 in M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, editors. Biodiversity and ecosys- tem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, UK.
  39. [383]383. Watson, J. W., and P. B. Eyzaguirre, editors. 2002. Home gardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems. Proceedings of the Second Interna- tional Home Gardens Workshop. International Plant Ge- netic Resources Institute, Rome, Witzenhausen, Germany.
  40. [386]386. Weiher, E., and P. Keddy, editors. 1999b. Ecological assem- bly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, UK.
  41. [392]392. Wilson, E. O., and E. O. Willis. 1975. Applied biogeography. Pages 522-534 in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond, editors. Ecology and evolution of communities. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J. H., Lodge, D. M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A. J., Vandermeer, J., & Wardle, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Western Washington University (US)
  • University of Alaska Fairbanks (US)
  • US Forest Service (US)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (GB)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • École Normale Supérieure - PSL (FR)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Hooper, D. U.
ORCID
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02
Volume
75
Issue
1
Pages
3-35
ISSN
0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1890/04-0922
OpenAlex
W2103317434
Semantic Scholar
22b7cd42eab103c1fb75da08458733b5fbb992e9
Cited by
8,046
References
373
Citations by year
2026: 270 · 2025: 343 · 2024: 388 · 2023: 421 · 2022: 398 · 2021: 492 · 2020: 485 · 2019: 525 · 2018: 444 · 2017: 443 · 2016: 421 · 2015: 463 · 2014: 434 · 2013: 436 · 2012: 386
FWCI
186.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 3864 d)
Locations
  • Ecological Monographs (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9974159, 0213187)
  • Ecological Society of America
  • European Science Foundation
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
Keywords
biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, biological invasions, species extinction, ecosystem services, functional traits, keystone species, species interactions, community assembly, alternative stable states, ecosystem resilience, ecosystem management, human impact on biodiversity, disturbance regimes, rare species

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