Cited by 1,336Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems

Open access
Cardinale, Bradley J., Matulich, Kristin L., Hooper, David U., Byrnes, Jarrett E., Duffy, Emmett, Gamfeldt, Lars, Balvanera, Patricia, O'Connor, Mary I. +1 more·2011·American Journal of Botany

Abstract

Over the past several decades, a rapidly expanding field of research known as biodiversity and ecosystem functioning has begun to quantify how the world's biological diversity can, as an independent variable, control ecological processes that are both essential for, and fundamental to, the functioning of ecosystems. Research in this area has often been justified on grounds that (1) loss of biological diversity ranks among the most pronounced changes to the global environment and that (2) reductions in diversity, and corresponding changes in species composition, could alter important services that ecosystems provide to humanity (e.g., food production, pest/disease control, water purification). Here we review over two decades of experiments that have examined how species richness of primary producers influences the suite of ecological processes that are controlled by plants and algae in terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems. Using formal meta‐analyses, we assess the balance of evidence for eight fundamental questions and corresponding hypotheses about the functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. These include questions about how primary producer diversity influences the efficiency of resource use and biomass production in ecosystems, how primary producer diversity influences the transfer and recycling of biomass to other trophic groups in a food web, and the number of species and spatial /temporal scales at which diversity effects are most apparent. After summarizing the balance of evidence and stating our own confidence in the conclusions, we outline several new questions that must now be addressed if this field is going to evolve into a predictive science that can help conserve and manage ecological processes in ecosystems.

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 · 10.3732/ajb.1000364

Cites

95 of 95 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?

  • On average across many ecosystems, species identity and diversity each contributes roughly 50% to the net biodiversity effect.

    “each contributes roughly 50% to the net biodiversity effect 12”

    From Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

    In the discussion of mechanisms, the paper finds that species-selection and complementarity effects make comparable average contributions to producer biomass in terrestrial ecosystems. It does not establish a roughly 50/50 split across ecosystems: in aquatic ecosystems, selection effects make no consistent contribution. The cited passages have no page numbers in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The impact of biodiversity on any single ecosystem process is non-linear and saturating, such that change accelerates as biodiversity loss increases.

    “The impact of biodiversity on any single ecosystem process is non -linear and saturating, such that change accelerates as biodiversity loss increases”

    From Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

    Question 6 reports that diversity–function relationships are generally positive and saturating, and that losses of more species can lead to accelerating change in a measured process. It does not establish this pattern for *any* single ecosystem process; its conclusion is qualified as general and based on the processes studied in biodiversity experiments. The supplied copy gives a section label but no page number. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Biodiversity loss reduces the efficiency by which ecological communities capture biologically essential resources, produce biomass, decompose and recycle biologically essential nutrients.

    “There is now unequivocal evidence that biodiversity loss reduces the efficiency by which ecological communities capture biologically essential resources, produce biomass, decompose and recycle biologically essential nutrients”

    From Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

    The paper’s Q1 summary reports strong evidence that loss of producer species reduces biomass and resource assimilation. Its Q3 summary associates producer diversity with faster litter decomposition, but rates that evidence as limited and inconsistent across systems. The claim’s ‘unequivocal’ wording extends these findings to biodiversity generally and to nutrient recycling, which the cited passages discuss as a possible fate of decomposed litter rather than establish as a measured outcome. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Both the identity and the diversity of organisms jointly control the functioning of ecosystems.

    “both the identity and the diversity of organisms jointly control the functioning of ecosystems”

    From Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

  • There are exceptions to the general rule that biodiversity loss reduces ecosystem functioning for some ecosystems and processes.

    “There are exceptions to this statement for some ecosystems and processes 12,32,36”

    From Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

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: 4

  1. [12]12. Cardinale , B. J. , J. P. Wright , M. W. Cadotte , I. T. Carroll , A. Hector , D. S. Srivastava , M. Loreau , and J. J. Weis . 2007 . Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time due to complementary resource use: A meta-analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104 : 18123 -18128 .
  2. [30]30. Naeem , S. 2001 . Experimental validity and ecological scale as tools for eval- uating research programs. In R. H. Gardner, W. M. Kemp, V. S. Kennedy, and J. E. Petersen [eds.], Scaling relationships in experimental ecology, 223 -250. Columbia University Press, New York New York, USA.
  3. [48]48. Field , C. B. 1995 . Productive capacity and biomass accumulation. In U. N. E. Programme [ed.], Global biodiversity assessment, 402 -406. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  4. [68]68. Schmid , B. , P. Balvanera , B. J. Cardinale , J. Godbold , A. B. Pfisterer , D. Raffaelli , M. Solan , and D. S. Srivastava . 2009a . Consequences of species loss for ecosystem functioning: A meta- analysis of data from biodiversity experiments In S. Naeem, D. Bunker, M. Loreau, A. Hector, and C. Perring [eds.], Biodiversity and human impacts, 14 -29. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cardinale, B. J., Matulich, K. L., Hooper, D. U., Byrnes, J. E., Duffy, E., Gamfeldt, L., Balvanera, P., O'Connor, M. I., & Gonzalez, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Western Washington University (US)
  • National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (US)
  • William & Mary (US)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MX)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Cardinale, Bradley J.
Venue
American Journal of Botany
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03
Volume
98
Issue
3
Pages
572-592
ISSN
  • 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2197
OpenAlex
W2113079967
Cited by
1,336
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 94 · 2016: 114 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 90 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 65
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Botany (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • W&M Publish (College of William & Mary) (submittedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (#EF‐0553768, DEB‐0842009)
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 › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
biodiversity-ecosystem functioning, species richness, resource efficiency, biomass production, nutrient cycling, food web transfer, trophic interactions, ecosystem services
MeSH terms
Species Specificity, Databases as Topic, Food Chain, Biodiversity

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