Complementarity of ecosystem types drives landscape-wide productivity in North America
Landauer, S.; Altermatt, F.; Furrer, R.; Isbell, F.; Spehn, E. M.; Niklaus, P. A.
Show abstract
Landscape mosaics with a greater diversity of ecosystems tend to be more productive, mirroring the well-established relationship between species diversity and productivity observed in plot-scale biodiversity experiments. However, the mechanisms driving this effect at the landscape scale remain unclear. Here, we analyze a 15-year time series of satellite-derived primary productivity across over 50,000 landscape plots that vary in ecosystem composition. Our results demonstrate that more diverse landscapes are more productive and more predictable under environmental stress, especially drought. Using statistical partitioning, we show that these diversity effects are primarily driven by complementarity, with productivity gains that are broadly shared among ecosystem types rather than being dominated by a few. The specific ecosystem types that contributed most to landscape functioning varied regionally, but their role in driving mixture productivity remained unaffected by drought. These findings extend biodiversity theory to the landscape scale, emphasizing the critical role of higher-order diversity in shaping ecosystem function and informing landscape management.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Plant litter decomposition in global drylands is better predicted by precipitation seasonality and temperature than by aridity 92%
- High standing genetic variation in an invasive plant allows immediate evolutionary response to climate warming 92%
- Matthew effect: common species become more common and rare ones become more rare in response to artificial light at night 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.