Out of the shadows

multiple nutrient limitations drive relationships among biomass, light and plant diversity

W Stanley Harpole, Lauren Sullivan, Eric M Lind, Jennifer Firn, Peter B Adler, Elizabeth T Borer, Jonathan Chase, Philip A Fay, Yann Hautier, Helmut Hillebrand, Andrew S MacDougall, Eric W Seabloom, Jonathan D Bakker, Marc W. Cadotte, Enrique J. Chaneton, Chengjin Chu, Nicole Hagenah, Kevin P Kirkman, Kimberly J La Pierre, Joslin L. Moore & 5 others John W Morgan, Suzanne M Prober, Anita C Risch, Martin Schuetz, Carly J Stevens

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

Abstract

The paradigmatic hypothesis for the effect of fertilisation on plant diversity represents a one-dimensional trade-off for plants competing for below-ground nutrients (generically) and above-ground light: fertilisation reduces competition for nutrients while increasing biomass and thereby shifts competition for depleted available light. The essential problem of this simple paradigm is that it misses both the multivariate and mechanistic nature of the factors that determine biodiversity as well as their causal relationships. We agree that light limitation, as DeMalach and Kadmon argue, can indeed be an important factor associated with diversity loss, and we presented it as an integral part of our tests of the niche dimension hypothesis. We disagree with DeMalach and Kadmon that light is the ‘main’ factor explaining diversity, because this misrepresents the causal structure represented in the design of our experiment in which multiple nutrient addition was the ultimate causal driver of a suite of correlated responses that included diversity and light, and especially live and dead biomass, which are the factors that control light depletion. Our findings highlight that multiple nutrient limitations can structure plant diversity and composition independently of changes in light and biomass. For example, approximately one-third of our sites showed no significant increase in biomass with greater number of added nutrients yet still lost diversity when nutrients were added. The important message is that while light limitation can be an important contributor to diversity loss, it is not a necessary mechanism.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1839-1846
Number of pages8
JournalFunctional Ecology
Volume31
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2017

Keywords

  • biodiversity
  • light
  • multivariate causal relationships
  • nutrient limitation
  • resource limitation

Cite this

Harpole, W. S., Sullivan, L., Lind, E. M., Firn, J., Adler, P. B., Borer, E. T., ... Stevens, C. J. (2017). Out of the shadows: multiple nutrient limitations drive relationships among biomass, light and plant diversity. Functional Ecology, 31(9), 1839-1846. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12967
Harpole, W Stanley ; Sullivan, Lauren ; Lind, Eric M ; Firn, Jennifer ; Adler, Peter B ; Borer, Elizabeth T ; Chase, Jonathan ; Fay, Philip A ; Hautier, Yann ; Hillebrand, Helmut ; MacDougall, Andrew S ; Seabloom, Eric W ; Bakker, Jonathan D ; Cadotte, Marc W. ; Chaneton, Enrique J. ; Chu, Chengjin ; Hagenah, Nicole ; Kirkman, Kevin P ; La Pierre, Kimberly J ; Moore, Joslin L. ; Morgan, John W ; Prober, Suzanne M ; Risch, Anita C ; Schuetz, Martin ; Stevens, Carly J. / Out of the shadows : multiple nutrient limitations drive relationships among biomass, light and plant diversity. In: Functional Ecology. 2017 ; Vol. 31, No. 9. pp. 1839-1846.
@article{5aa4d972729e4954a8134560ca7b33b8,
title = "Out of the shadows: multiple nutrient limitations drive relationships among biomass, light and plant diversity",
abstract = "The paradigmatic hypothesis for the effect of fertilisation on plant diversity represents a one-dimensional trade-off for plants competing for below-ground nutrients (generically) and above-ground light: fertilisation reduces competition for nutrients while increasing biomass and thereby shifts competition for depleted available light. The essential problem of this simple paradigm is that it misses both the multivariate and mechanistic nature of the factors that determine biodiversity as well as their causal relationships. We agree that light limitation, as DeMalach and Kadmon argue, can indeed be an important factor associated with diversity loss, and we presented it as an integral part of our tests of the niche dimension hypothesis. We disagree with DeMalach and Kadmon that light is the ‘main’ factor explaining diversity, because this misrepresents the causal structure represented in the design of our experiment in which multiple nutrient addition was the ultimate causal driver of a suite of correlated responses that included diversity and light, and especially live and dead biomass, which are the factors that control light depletion. Our findings highlight that multiple nutrient limitations can structure plant diversity and composition independently of changes in light and biomass. For example, approximately one-third of our sites showed no significant increase in biomass with greater number of added nutrients yet still lost diversity when nutrients were added. The important message is that while light limitation can be an important contributor to diversity loss, it is not a necessary mechanism.",
keywords = "biodiversity, light, multivariate causal relationships, nutrient limitation, resource limitation",
author = "Harpole, {W Stanley} and Lauren Sullivan and Lind, {Eric M} and Jennifer Firn and Adler, {Peter B} and Borer, {Elizabeth T} and Jonathan Chase and Fay, {Philip A} and Yann Hautier and Helmut Hillebrand and MacDougall, {Andrew S} and Seabloom, {Eric W} and Bakker, {Jonathan D} and Cadotte, {Marc W.} and Chaneton, {Enrique J.} and Chengjin Chu and Nicole Hagenah and Kirkman, {Kevin P} and {La Pierre}, {Kimberly J} and Moore, {Joslin L.} and Morgan, {John W} and Prober, {Suzanne M} and Risch, {Anita C} and Martin Schuetz and Stevens, {Carly J}",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1365-2435.12967",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "1839--1846",
journal = "Functional Ecology",
issn = "0269-8463",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

Harpole, WS, Sullivan, L, Lind, EM, Firn, J, Adler, PB, Borer, ET, Chase, J, Fay, PA, Hautier, Y, Hillebrand, H, MacDougall, AS, Seabloom, EW, Bakker, JD, Cadotte, MW, Chaneton, EJ, Chu, C, Hagenah, N, Kirkman, KP, La Pierre, KJ, Moore, JL, Morgan, JW, Prober, SM, Risch, AC, Schuetz, M & Stevens, CJ 2017, 'Out of the shadows: multiple nutrient limitations drive relationships among biomass, light and plant diversity', Functional Ecology, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1839-1846. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12967

Out of the shadows : multiple nutrient limitations drive relationships among biomass, light and plant diversity. / Harpole, W Stanley; Sullivan, Lauren; Lind, Eric M; Firn, Jennifer; Adler, Peter B; Borer, Elizabeth T; Chase, Jonathan; Fay, Philip A; Hautier, Yann; Hillebrand, Helmut; MacDougall, Andrew S; Seabloom, Eric W; Bakker, Jonathan D; Cadotte, Marc W.; Chaneton, Enrique J.; Chu, Chengjin; Hagenah, Nicole; Kirkman, Kevin P; La Pierre, Kimberly J; Moore, Joslin L.; Morgan, John W; Prober, Suzanne M; Risch, Anita C; Schuetz, Martin; Stevens, Carly J.

In: Functional Ecology, Vol. 31, No. 9, 01.09.2017, p. 1839-1846.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Out of the shadows

T2 - multiple nutrient limitations drive relationships among biomass, light and plant diversity

AU - Harpole, W Stanley

AU - Sullivan, Lauren

AU - Lind, Eric M

AU - Firn, Jennifer

AU - Adler, Peter B

AU - Borer, Elizabeth T

AU - Chase, Jonathan

AU - Fay, Philip A

AU - Hautier, Yann

AU - Hillebrand, Helmut

AU - MacDougall, Andrew S

AU - Seabloom, Eric W

AU - Bakker, Jonathan D

AU - Cadotte, Marc W.

AU - Chaneton, Enrique J.

AU - Chu, Chengjin

AU - Hagenah, Nicole

AU - Kirkman, Kevin P

AU - La Pierre, Kimberly J

AU - Moore, Joslin L.

AU - Morgan, John W

AU - Prober, Suzanne M

AU - Risch, Anita C

AU - Schuetz, Martin

AU - Stevens, Carly J

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - The paradigmatic hypothesis for the effect of fertilisation on plant diversity represents a one-dimensional trade-off for plants competing for below-ground nutrients (generically) and above-ground light: fertilisation reduces competition for nutrients while increasing biomass and thereby shifts competition for depleted available light. The essential problem of this simple paradigm is that it misses both the multivariate and mechanistic nature of the factors that determine biodiversity as well as their causal relationships. We agree that light limitation, as DeMalach and Kadmon argue, can indeed be an important factor associated with diversity loss, and we presented it as an integral part of our tests of the niche dimension hypothesis. We disagree with DeMalach and Kadmon that light is the ‘main’ factor explaining diversity, because this misrepresents the causal structure represented in the design of our experiment in which multiple nutrient addition was the ultimate causal driver of a suite of correlated responses that included diversity and light, and especially live and dead biomass, which are the factors that control light depletion. Our findings highlight that multiple nutrient limitations can structure plant diversity and composition independently of changes in light and biomass. For example, approximately one-third of our sites showed no significant increase in biomass with greater number of added nutrients yet still lost diversity when nutrients were added. The important message is that while light limitation can be an important contributor to diversity loss, it is not a necessary mechanism.

AB - The paradigmatic hypothesis for the effect of fertilisation on plant diversity represents a one-dimensional trade-off for plants competing for below-ground nutrients (generically) and above-ground light: fertilisation reduces competition for nutrients while increasing biomass and thereby shifts competition for depleted available light. The essential problem of this simple paradigm is that it misses both the multivariate and mechanistic nature of the factors that determine biodiversity as well as their causal relationships. We agree that light limitation, as DeMalach and Kadmon argue, can indeed be an important factor associated with diversity loss, and we presented it as an integral part of our tests of the niche dimension hypothesis. We disagree with DeMalach and Kadmon that light is the ‘main’ factor explaining diversity, because this misrepresents the causal structure represented in the design of our experiment in which multiple nutrient addition was the ultimate causal driver of a suite of correlated responses that included diversity and light, and especially live and dead biomass, which are the factors that control light depletion. Our findings highlight that multiple nutrient limitations can structure plant diversity and composition independently of changes in light and biomass. For example, approximately one-third of our sites showed no significant increase in biomass with greater number of added nutrients yet still lost diversity when nutrients were added. The important message is that while light limitation can be an important contributor to diversity loss, it is not a necessary mechanism.

KW - biodiversity

KW - light

KW - multivariate causal relationships

KW - nutrient limitation

KW - resource limitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028753882&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1365-2435.12967

DO - 10.1111/1365-2435.12967

M3 - Comment / Debate

VL - 31

SP - 1839

EP - 1846

JO - Functional Ecology

JF - Functional Ecology

SN - 0269-8463

IS - 9

ER -