Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Integrating methods that investigate how complementarity influences ecosystem functioning


Petchey, Owen L (2003). Integrating methods that investigate how complementarity influences ecosystem functioning. Oikos, 101(2):323-330.

Abstract

Separating the mechanisms that influence ecosystem functioning has been a goal of recent high profile experiments. Integrating the various experimental and analytical methods that attempt this goal across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as careful definition of ‘complementarity’, produces novel insights and valuable lessons about new directions for research. (1) Experimental designs differ in temporal scale and whether standing stock or another ecosystem process was the response variable. (2) Mathematically identical variables in different designs have contrasting ecological interpretations. For example, different sets of ecological processes can contribute to different variables in different experimental designs. (3) The frequency of transgressive overyielding of standing stock (e.g. total above ground biomass) in polycultures implies little about the prevalence of transgressive overyielding in other ecosystem processes. (4) Measuring the contribution to ecosystem functioning of individual species, rather than just total ecosystem functioning of a polyculture, is not essential for estimating effects of complementarity. (5) Further research will profit from distinguishing standing stock from all other ecosystem functions. (6) None of the analytic methods can distinguish the effects of individual processes or mechanisms such as resource use differentiation, facilitation, or allelopathy, for which additional experimental treatments are required.

Abstract

Separating the mechanisms that influence ecosystem functioning has been a goal of recent high profile experiments. Integrating the various experimental and analytical methods that attempt this goal across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as careful definition of ‘complementarity’, produces novel insights and valuable lessons about new directions for research. (1) Experimental designs differ in temporal scale and whether standing stock or another ecosystem process was the response variable. (2) Mathematically identical variables in different designs have contrasting ecological interpretations. For example, different sets of ecological processes can contribute to different variables in different experimental designs. (3) The frequency of transgressive overyielding of standing stock (e.g. total above ground biomass) in polycultures implies little about the prevalence of transgressive overyielding in other ecosystem processes. (4) Measuring the contribution to ecosystem functioning of individual species, rather than just total ecosystem functioning of a polyculture, is not essential for estimating effects of complementarity. (5) Further research will profit from distinguishing standing stock from all other ecosystem functions. (6) None of the analytic methods can distinguish the effects of individual processes or mechanisms such as resource use differentiation, facilitation, or allelopathy, for which additional experimental treatments are required.

Statistics

Citations

110 citations in Web of Science®
112 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 10 Jul 2012
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
590 Animals (Zoology)
Language:English
Date:2003
Deposited On:10 Jul 2012 15:09
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 15:47
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:0030-1299
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11828.x
Other Identification Number:Accession Number: WOS:000182800600011

Download