ChapterPDF Available

Incorporating biodiversity in climate change mitigation initiatives

July 2009

July 2009

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547951.003.0011

In book: Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing (pp.149-166)

Authors:

Sandra Diaz

National University of Cordoba, Argentina

David Wardle

Umeå University

Andy Hector

University of Zurich

Climate change mitigation initiatives based on biological sequestration of carbon have paid little attention to biodiversity, with important implications both for climate change mitigation and for ecosystem services that depend on biodiversity. Here the chapter reviews the theoretical and empirical evidence for forest biodiversity effects on carbon sequestration. This chapter suggests that protection of primary forests is the most effective option for maximizing carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems, and should be included in future international agreements. Because carbon sequestration is a long term goal, this chapter presents the case that avoidance of losses should be emphasized over short term uptake, and that maintenance of mixtures of dominant and subdominant species and genotypes are the safest option for carbon sequestration in plantations and agroforestry systems. Biodiversity conservation should be included in the development of policy for climate change mitigation initiatives based on carbon sequestration in forested systems, including those related to the Kyoto Protocol.

The traits of plants, especially dominant plants, strongly influence C and mineral nutrient cycling and thus C sequestration capacity in different ecosystems. Plant traits serve as determinants of the quality and quantity of resources that enter the soil and the key ecological processes in the decomposer subsystem driven by the soil biota. These linkages between belowground and aboveground systems feed back (dotted line) to the plant community positively in fertile ecosystems (left) and negatively in infertile ecosystems (right). C sequestration is highest in infertile conditions because decomposition is more impaired than net primary productivity by infertility and in colder conditions because decomposition is impaired more than net primary productivity by low temperatures (Derived from Wardle et al. 2004a).

…

Figures - uploaded by Sandra Diaz

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Sandra Diaz

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Sandra Diaz

Content may be subject to copyright.

Biodiversity,

Ecosystem

Functioning, and

Human Wellbeing

An Ecological and Economic

Perspective

EDITED BY

Shahid Naeem,

Daniel E. Bunker,

Andy Hector,

Michel Loreau,

and

Charles Perrings

Contents

List of contributors viii

Preface xi

Shahid Naeem, Daniel E. Bunker, Andy Hector, Michel Loreau,

and Charles Perrings

Acknowledgments xiv

Part 1: Introduction, background, and meta-analyses 1

1 Introduction: the ecological and social implications of changing

biodiversity. An overview of a decade of biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning research 3

Shahid Naeem, Daniel E. Bunker, Andy Hector, Michel Loreau,

and Charles Perrings

2 Consequences of species loss for ecosystem functioning:

meta-analyses of data from biodiversity experiments 14

Bernhard Schmid, Patricia Balvanera, Bradley J. Cardinale, Jasmin Godbold,

Andrea B. Pﬁsterer, David Raffaelli, Martin Solan, and Diane S. Srivastava

3 Biodiversity-ecosystem function research and biodiversity futures:

early bird catches the worm or a day late and a dollar short? 30

Martin Solan, Jasmin A. Godbold, Amy Symstad, Dan F. B. Flynn,

and Daniel E. Bunker

Part 2: Natural science foundations 47

4 A functional guide to functional diversity measures 49

Owen L. Petchey, Eoin J. O’Gorman, and Dan F. B. Flynn

5 Forecasting decline in ecosystem services under realistic

scenarios of extinction 60

J. Emmett Duffy, Diane S. Srivastava, Jennie McLaren, Mahesh Sankaran,

Martin Solan, John Grifﬁn, Mark Emmerson, and Kate E. Jones

6 Biodiversity and the stability of ecosystem functioning 78

John N. Grifﬁn, Eoin J. O’Gorman, Mark C. Emmerson, Stuart R. Jenkins,

Alexandra-Maria Klein, Michel Loreau, and Amy Symstad

CHAPTER 11

Incorporating biodiversity in climate

change mitigation initiatives

Sandra Díaz, David A. Wardle, and Andy Hector

11.1 Introduction

Climate change mitigation through the sequestration

of carbon (C), and the protection of biodiversity have

captured the attention of scientists, governmental

agencies, and the public in general in the past few

years. This is justiﬁable in view of the formidable

challenges posed by them to the long-term sustain-

ability of the Earth’s life support systems (Millen-

nium Ecosystem Assessment 2005b, IPCC 2007).

Biodiversity and C sequestration in the bio-

sphere have seldom been considered in an inte-

grated way, either by international conventions or

by the scientiﬁc community. Biodiversity considera-

tions have been taken into account only marginally

in international initiatives and agreements aimed at

mitigating the ecological impacts of climate change.

The most inﬂuential of these initiatives is the Kyoto

Protocol to the United Nations Framework Con-

vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is

intended to slow down the human contribution to

increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.

pdf). This protocol was entered into force in February

2005 and has now been signed and ratiﬁed by 183

states. The Kyoto Protocol considers net C seques-

tration in the biosphere as one way to stabilize carbon

dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and offers countries

the opportunity to receive ‘carbon credits’for

enhancing sequestration. According to the deﬁnitions

of the Marrakech Accord, climate change mitigation

measures based on biological sequestration of C

include afforestation, reforestation, revegetation, and

forest, cropland and grazing land management

(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a02.pdf).

However, when deﬁning eligible C sequestration

initiatives to be taken by different countries, the Kyoto

Protocol explicitly excludes natural ecosystems

already extant in 1990 as C sinks (http://unfccc.int/

resource/docs/cop6secpart/l11r01.pdf). This is also

the case with regard to the Clean Development

Mechanisms (CMD, http://unfccc.int/resource/

docs/2002/sbsta/misc22a04.pdf; see also Article 12

of the Kyoto Protocol) by which developed countries

that emit C in excess of agreed-upon limits can obtain

C offsets by investing in initiatives to sequester C and

foster sustainable development in less developed

countries. Here, only afforestation and reforestation

qualify as eligible land use initiatives during the ﬁrst

commitment period of 2008–2012 (http://unfccc.int/

kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php).

There is no mention of biodiversity in the main

text of the Kyoto Protocol. The documents emerg-

ing from several meetings between 2001 and 2008

(Conferences of the Parties to the UNFCCC 7-13,

and meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Scientiﬁc

and Technological Advice, http://unfccc.int/

meetings/items/2654.php) represent an advance in

the sense that they incorporate biodiversity con-

cerns. For example, the Marrakech (CoP-7), Milan

(CoP-9) and Buenos Aires (CoP-10) accords, and the

modalities for implementation of the CDM projects

(CoP-11) explicitly state that LULUCF (land use,

land use change, and forestry) and CDM initiatives

must contribute to the conservation of biodiversity

and sustainable use of natural resources, as well as

to the promotion of C sequestration. Following the

Montreal meeting (CoP 11), a request was issued to

analyze the inclusion of avoided deforestation

(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Deg-

radation, or REDD) as part of the UNFCC activities

149

in developing countries, either as part of the CDM

next commitment period starting in 2012, or as a

separate instrument designed speciﬁcally for this

purpose. REDD are now an integral part of the

‘Bali Road Map’(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/

2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf), which resulted from

CoP 13. As in the case of the CDMs, the fact that

the REDD initiatives should be compatible with

the preservation of biodiversity is explicitly

mentioned. These represent important steps for-

ward, but biodiversity is still considered as a

rather general ‘side beneﬁt’of carbon sequestra-

tion initiatives.

Academic publications (e.g. Kremen et al. 2000,

Noss 2001, Niesten et al. 2002, Niles et al. 2002,

Schulze et al. 2002, Sanz et al. 2004, Balvanera et al.

2005, Kremen 2005, Balvanera et al. 2006, Fearnside

2006b, Betts et al. 2008, Field et al. 2008) and

assessment reports aimed to inform international

conventions on the best ways to mitigate the effects

of global change (e.g. Gitay et al. 2002, Díaz et al.

2003, Díaz et al. 2005, Stern 2006, Fischlin et al. 2007,

Royal Society 2008) have stressed the importance of

considering biodiversity, and analyzed the eco-

nomic, social, and environmental costs and beneﬁts

of incorporating biodiversity-related criteria into C

sequestration. However, in our opinion the fact that

biodiversity not only has intrinsic value but could

also enhance or reduce the effectiveness of C

sequestration actions has not been sufﬁciently

explored.

In this chapter we ask whether forest plant bio-

diversity, through its effects on ecosystem processes

and especially on long-term C storage, is likely to

have relevant consequences for the effectiveness of

C sequestration. We ﬁrst consider the theoretical

background by which this could happen. Then we

consider the available evidence. Finally, we make

some recommendations based on this background

and identify knowledge gaps and future research

needs.

We refer to biodiversity as the number, abun-

dance and identity of genotypes, populations, spe-

cies, functional groups and traits, and landscape

units present in a given ecosystem (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2005b, Díaz et al. 2006). In

taking this broad approach, we consider species

richness as just one component of biodiversity, and

include other components, such as the identity and

abundance of species and functional and structural

traits, in our analysis, since recent syntheses (Díaz

et al. 2005, Hooper et al. 2005, Díaz et al. 2006,

Chapin et al. 2008) highlight the fact that composi-

tion is more important in determining ecosystem

functioning than richness.

11.2 How can biodiversity affect C

sequestration?

The success of C sequestration initiatives depends

on how much C can be stored in the long term,

which in turn depends on the net balance between

C gain and C loss over long periods. It also depends

on how important the C-sequestering ecosystem is

perceived to be by the local stakeholders and the

society at large, which in turn depends on the

extent to which positive ancillary effects (such as

preserved or enhanced ecosystem services other

than C sequestration) can be obtained from it. This

is because when stakeholders value the potential of

an ecosystem to provide drinking water, food,

aesthetic enjoyment, protection against natural

disasters, and other services, they are more likely to

protect its integrity, and therefore its C sequestra-

tion capacity, in the long term.

In this chapter we summarize the theoretical

bases and some emerging evidence by which bio-

diversity as deﬁned above could inﬂuence the

overall success of C sequestration initiatives. We

focus on path one of Fig. 11.1, and claim that bio-

diversity should be explicitly considered in the

design of C sequestration initiatives.

It is common in international negotiations to use

the term ‘C sequestration’in a loose sense, to refer

to the enhancement of both C stocks in and inﬂuxes

into the biosphere through avoided deforestation,

afforestation, reforestation, revegetation, and forest,

cropland, and grazing land management. In the

ecological sense, however, C sequestration refers to

the maintenance or enhancement of C stocks in the

biosphere. This is because large inﬂuxes can

sometimes be accompanied by large efﬂuxes,

resulting in no net C accumulation. Net C seques-

tration occurs when the size and/or residence time

of C stocks increases, due to a long-term positive

balance between an ecosystem’s C gains through

150 BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING, AND HUMAN WELLBEING

net primary productivity and C losses through

heterotrophic respiration and non-respiratory

processes such as ﬁre, harvest, and leakages of

particulate, dissolved, or volatile C compounds

(Catovsky et al. 2002, Schulze et al. 2002, Chapin

et al. 2005, Schulze 2005). If biodiversity has the

potential to affect C gain through productivity, or C

loss through respiration and non-respiratory pro-

cesses, then it follows that it should inﬂuence both

the gross and the net C sequestration capacity of

ecosystems. In this contribution, we use the term C

sequestration (i.e. C storage) in the ecological sense,

as a positive long-term change in, or maintenance

of, C stocks. We refer to C inﬂuxes into the biotic

system as C uptake or C capture.

Different theoretical backgrounds and some

emerging evidence suggest that different compo-

nents of biodiversity (species and genotype com-

position, number and spatial arrangement) differ

in their potential to modify the magnitude, rate,

and long-term permanence of the biosphere’sC

stocks and ﬂuxes. Therefore, biodiversity consid-

eration could be an integral part of the design

and implementation of policy and management

actions aimed at enhancing the long-term C

sequestration capacity as well as the overall eco-

system-service value of primary, managed, and

planted forests.

11.2.1 C sequestration predictions based

on different theoretical approaches

How could biodiversity affect C sequestration in

primary, managed, or planted forests? At present,

there are three main theories leading to different

predictions. These theories are the neutral hypoth-

esis,themass ratio hypothesis,andtheniche com-

plementarity hypothesis.Wedistinguishtheneutral

hypothesis from the other two because species

differences play no role in it. Life history tradeoffs

between species underlie both the mass ratio and

niche complementarity hypotheses, but the ﬁrst

proposes that species inﬂuence ecosystem func-

tioning according to their traits and in direct

How much?

Size of C stock

How fast?

Sink capacity

How reliably?

Pool persistence

over time

Climate change mitigation options

C Sequestration

in biosphere

Ancillary benefits

Ecosystem

services other

than C

sequestration

Highly unsuccessful

Small, short-lived,

highly vulnerable

C pools

Low ancillary

benefits

Net balance between

C gain and loss

Ecosystem surface

area

Sink strength of

plant-soil system

Likelihood of C release

back to atmosphere

due to natural and

antropogenic causes

Highly successful

Large, long-lived,

highly reliable

C pools

High ancillary

benefits

111

Figure 11.1 The success of climate change mitigation

initiatives based on the biological sequestration of C depends

on two main components: path (1), the amount and

persistence of C sequestered in the plant–soil system; and

path (2), the ancillary beneﬁts provided by the C stock to

humans. The positive effect of ancillary beneﬁts is twofold.

On the one hand, humans get extra beneﬁts as well as

climate change mitigation, such as regulation of water

quality and quantity, soil fertility protection, traditional

products, or cultural continuity (‘win-win’options). On the

other hand, the higher these beneﬁts, the more likely the

local communities are to preserve the C stock, thus

increasing its long-term reliability.

INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 151

proportion to their relative abundance whereas

the other also takes species interactions into

account.

11.2.2 The neutral hypothesis

The Uniﬁed Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and

Biogeography (Hubbell 2001) predicts that diver-

sity can be maintained with random, neutral drift

inspeciesabundancessolongastheevolutionof

new species can balance stochastic extinctions.

Within the context of the links between biodiver-

sity and C sequestration, the neutral hypothesis

acts as a useful ‘nothing happens’model. The

neutral hypothesis assumes that individuals of all

species have equal per capita probabilities of

recruitment and mortality. On the surface the

theory may seem to predict that all species are

equal, but that is only the case for the recruitment

and mortality rates, and functional traits are not

explicitly considered. An attempt to reconcile

neutral theory with niche theory proposes that

species achieve equal per capita rates of recruitment

and mortality by different resource allocation tra-

deoffs (Hubbell 2001: Chapter 10). However, the

relative abundance of species is random with

respect to their traits. If C storage is determined by

the traits of species then under a neutral model,

the sequestration capacity of forests will vary

randomly over time along with neutral drift in the

relative abundances of species.

11.2.3 The mass ratio hypothesis

According to the mass ratio hypothesis (Grime

1998), resource dynamics at any given time in an

ecosystem strongly depend on the structural and

functional characteristics of the dominant (i.e. most

abundant) primary producers, and ecosystem

functioning should be strongly affected by their life

history tradeoffs. Therefore the total C stock of an

ecosystem, its sink strength (the rate of change of

the stock), and its residence time (the time that C

will remain sequestered in the system) should

strongly depend on the functional attributes of the

dominant plants, as well as on climate and soil

nutrients (Fig. 11.2). The traits of the dominants

should strongly inﬂuence C uptake via net primary

productivity and C loss via decomposition and

disturbance. Fast acquisition of C per unit of leaf

biomass or leaf area and long-term conservation of

standing biomass are not expected to be maximized

at the same time. This is because, across major taxa

and biomes, there should be a tradeoff between a

suite of attributes that promote fast C and mineral

nutrient acquisition and fast decomposition, and

another suite of attributes that promotes conserva-

tion of resources within well-protected tissues and

slow decomposition (Grime 1979, Hobbie 1992,

Cornelissen et al. 1999, Aerts and Chapin 2000, Díaz

et al. 2004, Wright et al. 2004). The former, acquisi-

tive, suite includes attributes such as leaves that are

nutrient-rich, palatable, and short-lived, and often

wood of low density. This suite is more common in

light-demanding early-successional plants that act

as pioneers after disturbance (Coley 1983, Pacala et

al. 1996, Cornelissen et al. 1999, Ellis et al. 2000, Ter

Steege and Hammond 2001, Laurance et al. 2006),

and leads to shorter C and nutrient residence time

in the ecosystem because of their short leaf lifespan

and fast litter decomposition rates (DeAngelis 1992,

Hobbie 1992, Aerts 1995, Wardle et al. 2004a). The

latter, conservative, suite of traits includes leaves

that are nutrient-poor, unpalatable, and long-lived,

and often dense wood. This suite is more common

in late-successional plants, which in forests include

mostly disturbance-intolerant species (especially

during ecosystem retrogression or decline, Walker

et al. 2001, Wardle et al. 2004b); these species can

increase C storage and mineral nutrient residence

time as a result of their long leaf lifespan and slow

litter decomposition rates. As a consequence of the

existence of these suites of strongly associated

attributes, there is a tradeoff at the ecosystem level

between short-term C assimilation rate and long-

term C storage. Within forest ecosystems, many

forest types are successional mosaics where early-

and late-successional patches coexist as a result of

natural die-off events or, more commonly, small

(e.g. tree fall) and large (e.g. forest ﬁres) disturbance

events (Denslow 1987, Crews et al. 1995, Pacala et al.

1996, Richardson et al. 2004). Early-successional and

late-successional patches are dominated by acquis-

itive and conservative species, respectively, leading

152 BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING, AND HUMAN WELLBEING

to a differentiation in ecosystem processes between

patches of different successional age. We should

note here that while the mass ratio hypothesis

describes the dominance of these strategies within

patches, the landscape scale diversity between

patches represents a form of niche complementarity

(see below).

The structural and physiological traits of the

dominant plants can also inﬂuence the probability

of disturbances such as ﬁre, wind-throw, and epi-

sodic herbivory, that are major avenues of C loss

from ecosystems (Laurance 2000, Knohl et al. 2002,

Lavorel and Garnier 2002, Chapin 2003, Pausas

et al. 2004, Gough et al. 2008), and have important

consequences for the long-term success of C

sequestration initiatives. As well as this indirect

effect through C sequestration capacity, the struc-

tural and phenological attributes of vegetation

Fast-growing, short-lived plants

High allocation of C to growth

High specific leaf area

Short leaf lifespan

High N and low phenolics, lignin and

structural carbohydrates in litter

Fast C turnover, high or low C stocks

Slow-growing, long-lived plants

High C allocation to secondary compounds

Low specific leaf area

Long leaf lifespan

Low N and high phenolics, lignin

and structural carbohydrates in litter

Slow C turnover, high or low C stocks

Plants and litter

Bacterial-based energy channel

High density earthworms

Relatively low density microarthropods

High bioturbation of soil

Rapid decomposition and mineralization

High nutrient supply rates

Low soil C sequestration

Fungal-based energy channel

High density enchytraeid worms

High density macro- and microarthropods

Low soil mixing

Slow decomposition and mineralization

Low nutrient supply rates

High soil C sequestration

Soil webs and processes

–

C gain/C loss

balance

Fertile, productive

ecosystems

Cold (boreal, high-altitude) climate

Temperate climate

Tropical climate

Infertile, unproductive

ecosystems

Figure 11.2 The traits of plants, especially dominant plants, strongly inﬂuence C and mineral nutrient cycling and thus C sequestration capacity in different

ecosystems. Plant traits serve as determinants of the quality and quantity of resources that enter the soil and the key ecological processes in the decomposer

subsystem driven by the soil biota. These linkages between belowground and aboveground systems feed back (dotted line) to the plant community positively

in fertile ecosystems (left) and negatively in infertile ecosystems (right). C sequestration is highest in infertile conditions because decomposition is more

impaired than net primary productivity by infertility and in colder conditions because decomposition is impaired more than net primary productivity by low

temperatures (Derived from Wardle et al. 2004a).

INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 153

cover over large areas can affect climate directly.

Functional traits of the dominants, such as leaf

lifespan, growth form, root depth, and stomatal

conductance affect albedo, roughness, and evapo-

transpiration. Through these biophysical feedbacks,

the functional and structural composition of land

patches can inﬂuence climate at the local, regional,

and even trans-regional scale, depending on the

land area covered by each vegetation type (Chapin

et al. 2000a, Chapin et al. 2000b, Thompson et al.

2004, Chapin et al. 2005, Betts et al. 2008, Chapin

et al. 2008). Recently, Körner (2005) has summarized

the variety of functional traits in temperate and

boreal tree species and their possible ecosystem-

level implications, but a similar exercise has not yet

been carried out for tropical and subtropical eco-

systems.

Ecosystems consist of not just a producer but also

a decomposer subsystem, and C sequestration is

determined not just by ecosystem C gain (driven by

net primary productivity, or NPP) but also by C

loss (driven by decomposition). Thus, whether or

not C accumulates in soils is driven to a large extent

by the difference between C input to the soil

(through litterfall, dead root production, and rhi-

zosphere release) and C loss from the soil (through

decomposition and respiration). Although decom-

position at local (within-stand) scales is determined

largely by litter quality (and hence the traits that

drive litter quality), the linkages between above-

ground (producer) and belowground (decomposer)

communities are often relatively weak (Hooper

et al. 2000, Wardle et al. 2004a, Hättenschwiler

2005). Thus decomposition rates need not respond

to ecological gradients (e.g. succession, climate,

diversity) in the same direction or to the same

extent as does NPP. For example, decomposition is

promoted by temperature more than is NPP, lead-

ing to reduced soil C sequestration at higher tem-

peratures (Anderson 1991) and decomposition rates

may decline across successional gradients while

NPP is increasing, leading to rapid soil C accumu-

lation (Wardle et al. 2004b). Further, plant species

that produce high-quality litter may induce a

‘priming effect’that accelerates the losses of native

organic matter in the soil and thus promotes net

ecosystem C loss (Jenkinson 1971). This may also

explain why in some situations an increase in NPP

is not matched by an increase in the amount of C

stored in the soil (Fontaine et al. 2004), and may

have important, though largely unrealized, con-

sequences for soil C persistence and hence eco-

system C sequestration. Conversely, increasing

domination of the plant community by plant spe-

cies that are unproductive but contain high

amounts of recalcitrant lignin and polyphenol

compounds in their litter (such as can occur during

ecosystem retrogression) can contribute to greater

retention of C in the soil even when NPP is

declining (Wardle et al. 2003a) (Fig. 11.2).

Tree species (or forest vegetation types) can differ

markedly in the extent to which they promote

sequestration of soil C (e.g. Jobbagy and Jackson

2000, Rhoades et al. 2000, Resh et al. 2002, Matamala

et al. 2003, Russell et al. 2004), in a large part

because they differ in their effects on the balance

between C gain and C loss. For example, N-ﬁxing

trees will often accumulate more soil C than non-N-

ﬁxing trees (Resh et al. 2002). Systems dominated by

slow-growing tree species that produce well-

defended leaves (and hence poor litter quality)

frequently promote substantial soil C accumulation

relative to tree systems dominated by plants that

grow rapidly and produce litter of high quality

(Wardle et al. 2003a). The effectiveness of C

sequestration initiatives depend on the magnitude

and accumulation rate of soil C stocks, as well as

the persistence of these stocks. Soil organic carbon

(SOC) can be accumulated in short-lived pools,

such as the microbial and labile pools (mean resi-

dence time of <5 years), and long-lived pools in

which SOC is protected by association to colloidal

materials and the formation of stable micro-

aggregates or recalcitrant compounds (mean resi-

dence time of thousands of years) (Lal 2005); tree

species affect both of these pools. Dominant plant

species have a clear inﬂuence on short-lived pools

through root output and litter, and longer-lived

pools through their litter quality (Wardle et al.

2003a), although their capacity to inﬂuence longer-

lived pool is not always clear (Lal 2005, Jandl et al.

2007). Shallow rooting coniferous species tend to

accumulate SOC in the forest ﬂoor, but they will

sometimes accumulate less in deeper layers than

comparable deciduous trees that often have dee-

per, more ramiﬁed roots. This is presumably in

154 BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING, AND HUMAN WELLBEING

part due to the effective way in which root growth

and subsequent root death can directly result in

incorporation of organic matter inputs beneath the

soil surface (Jobbagy and Jackson 2000, Trumbore

2000, Vesterdal et al. 2002).

The mass ratio hypothesis does not deny that less

abundant species can sometimes play a major eco-

system role or face similar life history tradeoffs to

those of abundant species (Grime 1998, Eviner and

Chapin 2003, see below), but puts the emphasis on

the functional composition of local dominants (Nilsson

and Wardle 2005, Wardle and Zackrisson 2005). The

niche complementarity hypothesis, in contrast, high-

lights the functional differences between coexisting

species. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive,

and both processes can be operating in the same

system (Loreau and Hector 2001, Fox 2005b, Potvin

and Gotelli 2008). Many of the differences in life

history traits reviewed above with regard to the mass

ratio hypothesis may also be relevant to the discus-

sion of niche complementarity that follows.

11.2.4 The niche complementarity hypothesis

This hypothesis is based on the idea that a greater

range of physiological, structural, and phenologi-

cal traits represented in the local community pro-

vides opportunities for more efﬁcient resource use

in a spatially or temporally variable environment

(Trenbath 1974, Vitousek and Hooper 1993, Tilman

et al. 1997c). This hypothesis is also compatible

with the existence of trait tradeoffs, and indeed

such tradeoffs are the basis for niche differences

between species. But here there is less emphasis on

the tradeoffs of the dominants as major drivers of

ecosystem properties. When species show com-

plementary niche differences it is likely –but not

automatic (Hector 1998, Hector et al. 2002) –that a

mixture of species may show greater overall

resource uptake and rates of ecosystem processes

than the same species grown in monoculture.

Niche complementarity may relate to resource use,

but mixtures may also perform better if rates of

attack by natural enemies –either pests or patho-

gens –are higher in monocultures, in low-diversity

patches, or near parent trees (e.g. Janzen 1970).

Less abundant species are often minor players in

ecosystem resource dynamics (Grime 1998) but

may play an important role as a group, for

example through ecosystem engineering (Jones

et al. 1994), through keystone species effects (e.g.

plant species that form mutualisms with nitrogen-

ﬁxing bacteria, Vitousek and Walker 1989), and

through participating in complex indirect interac-

tions (Eviner and Chapin 2003). Non-abundant

species might be important in providing an

insuranceeffect(atypeoftemporalnichecom-

plementarity) that helps sustain ecosystem func-

tioning in the long term, particularly in a changing

environmental context (Walker 1995, Walker et al.

1999, Yachi and Loreau 1999). There are few

examples of insurance effects in the literature and

it is therefore still too early for a formal assessment

of their strength and occurrence.

The role of genetic differences between popula-

tions or genotypes of the same species in natural

ecosystems has been little studied. In the case of

herbaceous communities, Joshi et al.(2001)found

that the performance of different genotypes was

always best in the sites from which they were

sourced, and Booth and Grime (2003) reported that

communities composed of genetically uniform

populations appear to be more variable in canopy

structure, and to lose more species over time, than

communities composed of genetically heteroge-

neous populations. Reusch et al. (2005) showed

that genotypic richness of the cosmopolitan sea-

grass Zostera marina enhanced biomass production

despite near-lethal water temperatures due to

extreme warming across Europe. Crutsinger et al.

(2006) showed that increasing population geno-

typic richness in the old-ﬁeld herb Solidago altis-

sima determined arthropod diversity and increased

above-ground net primary productivity. However,

it is difﬁcult to know how general these patterns

are, and whether they apply to woody ecosystems.

Genetic variability among spatially separated

populations of the same tree species has been

shown to be an important driver of litter quality

and ecosystem processes such as decomposition,

herbivory and nutrient cycling (Treseder and

Vitousek 2001, Whitham et al. 2003, Schweitzer

et al. 2004, Schweitzer et al. 2005b), but experi-

mental evidence on the effects of tree intraspeciﬁc

genetic richness on ecosystem processes is still

lacking (Hughes et al. 2008). Indeed, most of the

INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 155

evidence of the positive effects of high species and

genotypic richness comes from the ﬁeld of sub-

sistence agriculture and forestry practiced by tra-

ditional peoples (Pretty 1995, Altieri 2004). This

diversity is often lost during the process of selec-

tion for the production of high-yielding varieties.

Therefore the possibility exists that the loss of

inter- and intra-speciﬁc genetic variation could

also lead to instability of plantations and other

managed woody ecosystems in the face of a

changing environment.

As for processes related to C loss, there are now

a number of litter-mixing studies that collectively

suggest that generally plant species composition

of litter rather than its richness plays an important

role in decomposition and nutrient cycling rates.

Although the additive effects of species richness

on litter decomposition cannot strictly be consid-

ered a niche complementarity effect in the sense of

complementarity of resource use, they are dis-

cussed here because they involve ‘richness-

related’effects, as does the niche complementarity

hypothesis. Litter mixing studies have found litter

species richness to exert generally idiosyncratic or

weak effects on litter mass loss (e.g. Wardle et al.

1997a, Bardgett and Shine 1999, Hector et al. 2000,

reviewed by Gartner and Cardon 2004), while

plant species richness has generally been found to

exert weak or neutral effects on soil processes

(Chapman et al. 1988, Hooper and Vitousek 1998).

Further, it has been shown experimentally that

addition of a greater richness of C substrates to

thesoil(suchasmightbeexpectedinamore

species-rich plant community) did not exert strong

or consistent effects on C loss rates from soil, or on

soil C storage (Orwin et al. 2006). However, in

instances in which NPP is promoted by plant

species richness, it is likely that decomposition

rates would be less unresponsive, in which case

greater C sequestration would be expected over

time. The mechanistic basis through which plant

richness might affect soil processes is relatively

poorly understood. However, the available evi-

dence suggests that plant species richness is not a

powerful driver of soil decomposer richness

(Hooper et al. 2000) and that decomposer richness

is not a major determinant of soil process rates

such as decomposition or nutrient supply rates for

plants (Laakso and Setälä1999, Setäläand McLean

2004, Hättenschwiler et al. 2005).

11.2.5 Where does the available

evidence stand and what else do we need

to know?

In summary, the predictions of these different

hypotheses for the incorporation of biodiversity in C

sequestration initiatives vary markedly. Taken to an

extreme, the mass ratio hypothesis predicts that C

storage would be maximized by planting a mono-

culture of the species with the combination of traits

(stature, lifespan, timber density, decomposition

rate, resistance to ﬁre, wind-throw, and pests) that

produces the highest species speciﬁc C storage for a

given area. The niche complementarity hypothesis

predicts that C storage will be impacted by inter-

speciﬁc differences among coexisting species, in

terms of resource use and tolerance to biotic and

abiotic factors. It also predicts that it may be possible

to increase C storage by planting complementary

mixtures of species, sets of species with known

mutually facilitative effects, and/or ensuring that a

mosaic of late- and early-successional patches is kept

(e.g. Caspersen and Pacala 2001). Finally, the neutral

hypothesis predicts that the C storage capacity of

natural forests will vary randomly with stochastic

shifts in species abundances. In plantations it may be

possible to inﬂuence C storage by controlling the

recruitment stage, for example by increasing seed or

seedling input of species that are good at seques-

tering C but are poor recruiters.

The three hypotheses all stem from strong

theoretical developments and are all supported

by empirical evidence to varying degrees in for-

ested systems. Most of the experiments from

whichthisevidenceisderivedwerenotorigin-

ally designed to test these hypotheses. Moreover,

there is an important body of results of experi-

ments speciﬁcally designed to test the effect of

biodiversity (and most commonly species rich-

ness) on the functioning of grasslands (reviewed

in Loreau et al. 2001, Díaz et al. 2005, Hooper et al.

2005) but there are few corresponding experi-

mental studies in woody ecosystems, which may

not necessarily behave in similar way to herba-

ceous ecosystems.

156 BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING, AND HUMAN WELLBEING

Table 11.1 provides an overview of recent studies

of the role of different components of plant biodi-

versity in C gain and loss of forest ecosystems. They

include primary forests, traditionally managed

forests, and commercial and experimental planta-

tions. Our synthesis, which is intended to be illus-

trative rather than exhaustive, reﬂects the scarcity

of published studies involving woody plants. This

is true for all continents, but particularly dramatic

in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, precisely where

most remaining high-diversity forests are located.

There have been some studies that can be inter-

preted in the light of the mass ratio or niche com-

plementarity hypotheses to varying degrees. As for

the neutral hypothesis, we found no study directly

linking it with the way in which biodiversity could

affect ecosystem processes. According to the origi-

nal authors’interpretation of their own results

(Table 11.1, third column) there seems to be more

support for the mass ratio hypothesis than for the

niche complementarity hypothesis, in the sense that

the authors conclude that composition (the pres-

ence of certain tree species) appears to play a more

important role than species richness. However,

compositional differences could arise from either

mass ratio or niche complementarity effects or some

combination of the two (Loreau and Hector 2001).

Distinguishing the relative contributions of these

two mechanisms will require future studies that are

explicitly designed to discriminate among the two

classes of causes. Evidence for relationships

between species richness and stability of forests and

plantations is mixed. It follows that particular

attention should be paid to the identity of the spe-

cies chosen for afforestation, reforestation and

rehabilitation projects, with the actual richness of

species planted taking second place. However, (1)

positive effects on ecosystem functioning are often

found in mixtures of two or more species compared

to monocultures; (2) virtually all the reported

studies were not speciﬁcally designed to distin-

guish between the three different hypotheses, and

the patterns observed may ﬁt more than one of

them (e.g. Chave 2004, Volkov et al. 2005); and (3)

mass ratio, niche complementarity, and neutral

hypothesis mechanisms may all be acting simulta-

neously (e.g. Potvin and Gotelli 2008).

An experimental test of the neutral hypothesis

through the removal of dominant species has

recently been performed for intertidal communi-

ties (Wootton 2005), but the feasibility of this

approach for use in other systems is unclear.

Experiments to deﬁnitively establish the relative

importance of the mass ratio and niche comple-

mentarity mechanisms for determining ecosystem

properties in forests will ideally require the

establishment of monocultures and mixtures of all

component species under the same environmental

and management conditions (e.g. Redondo-Brenes

and Montagnini 2006, Potvin and Gotelli 2008).

This may be practical for species-poor ecosystems

(e.g. boreal forests), but it quickly becomes

unfeasible if one is to incorporate even a fraction of

the high richness of tree species characteristic of

many tropical forests. We also emphasize that

experimental approaches of this type are not the

only way to formally test for the role of biodiver-

sity in ecosystem functioning, and ideally the

results of such studies should be considered

alongside other approaches that have recently

been employed to test how biodiversity affects

forest C sequestration, such as simulation- and

modelling-based approaches (Bunker et al. 2005),

ﬁeld removal experiments (Díaz et al. 2003,

Wootton 2005), observational studies using well

characterized gradients of plant diversity (Wardle

et al. 2003a), and forestry projects that incorporate

diversity components into their design (i.e. ‘enrich-

ment planting’, e.g. Evans and Turnbull 2004). In the

end, even being able to successfully distinguish

between the relative importance of mass ratio, niche

complementarity, and neutral hypothesis effects

may not necessarily be crucial to the practical

purposes of C sequestration, especially as these

hypotheses are not all mutually exclusive. For

example, experimenting with mixtures that contain

non-random combinations of species (such as those

that represent traditional mixtures), or maximize key

ecosystem services like C sequestration plus food

production, or are the most economically and

socially feasible in each region, might make more

practical sense than incorporating all the possible

mixtures of component species within the experi-

mental design.

INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 157

Table 11.1 A summary (representative rather than exhaustive) of studies published during the last 13 years on the effects of different components of biodiversity on C sequestration through impacts on C gains or

losses in woody ecosystems.

Ecosystem type and location Main biodiversity

component involved

Findings Source

C gain

Experimental plantations of fast-growing tropical tree

species Hyeronima alchomeoides,Cedrela odorata, and

Cordia alliodora; each species grown alone and with

two perennial, large-stature, monocots (Euterpe

oleracea and Heliconia imbricata)

Species and functional

group richness

Ecosystem productivity and resource capture were increased when the

monocots were grown with C. odorata and C. alliodora, but not with H.

alchomeoides

Haggar and Ewel

(1997)

Boreal forest trees and understorey vegetation on

Swedish lake islands

Species and functional

group richness

Species-rich islands less productive at large spatial scale (between islands)

because more productive species dominate on less diverse islands; some

evidence of greater understorey species richness promoting overall forest

productivity within islands

Wardle et al. (1997),

Wardle et al. (2003),

Wardle and

Zackrisson (2005)

Young plantations of four indigenous tree species:

Hieronyma alchorneoides,Vochysia ferruginea,

Pithecellobium elegans, and Genipa americana, growing

in mixed and pure stands at La Selva Biological Station,

Costa Rica

Species richness and

identity

Total tree biomass production rate of the mixture was not signiﬁcantly

higher than that of the most productive monocultures

Stanley and

Montagnini (1999)

Stand productivity in USA Forest Inventory and Analysis

database

Species richness Positive correlation between tree species richness and stand productivity,

especially when comparing monocultures vs. mixtures of two or more

species; variations in abiotic factors not considered

Caspersen and Pacola

(2001)

Stand biomass in global forest dataset Species richness Forest stand biomass not associated with tree species richness Enquist and Niklas

(2001)

Experimental plantations of three native tree species,

Hyeronima alchoreoides,Cedrela odorata, and Cordia

alliodora, in monoculture and in mixtures with the palm

Euterpe oleracea and the giant perennial Heliconia

imbricata, in Costa Rica Atlantic lowlands

Species richness and

composition

and functional group

richness

Tree species richness inﬂuenced ecosystem nutrient use efﬁciency in tree-

only stands. Aboveground net primary productivity after four years was

signiﬁcantly higher in polycultures than in monocultures of C. odorata,

and C. alliodora, but not in the case of H. alchomeoides. The presence of

the additional life forms increased nutrient uptake and uptake efﬁciency,

but only in some systems and years

Hiremath and Ewel

(2001)

Although species and life forms exerted considerable inﬂuence on

ecosystem nutrient use efﬁciency, this was most closely related to soil

nutrient availability

Stand productivity of boreal forests dominated by Betula

spp., Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris, under the same

environmental conditions and management

Species richness and

composition

Mixtures of Betula spp. and P. abies more productive than Picea

monocultures, but mixtures of Betula spp. and P. sylvestris were less

productive than P. sylvestris monocultures; species richness effect

signiﬁcant only at early successional stages

Frivold and Frank

(2002)

Long-term experimental comparison of different

agroforestry systems in Brazilian Amazonia; peach palm

(Bactris gasipaes) for fruit and heart-of-palm production,

cupuaçu(Theobroma grandiﬂorum), and rubber

(Hevea brasiliensis) planted n multistrata mixtures

and in monocultures, also compared with adjacent

primary rainforest and 14-year old secondary

forest

Species richness and

composition

Multistrata agroforestry system showed more accumulation of above- and

belowground biomass than cupuaçu, rubber, or peach palm for heart-of-

palm, but less than peach palm for fruit

Secondary forest accumulated 50%, and primary forest likely 500% more

total biomass than the most productive plantation

Schroth et al. (2002)

Wood production in Catalonian forests with different

degrees of species richness, dominated by Pinus

sylvestris or Pinus halepensis

Species richness In P. sylvestris forests wood production was not signiﬁcantly different

between monospeciﬁc and mixed plots. In P. halepensis forests wood

production was greater in mixed plots than in monospeciﬁc plots. No

signiﬁcant effect of species richness when environmental factors were

considered.

Vilàet al. (2003)

Experimental plantations of three native tree species,

Hyeronima alchoreoides,Cedrela odorata, and Cordia

alliodora, in monoculture and in mixtures with the palm

Euterpe oleracea and the giant perennial Heliconia

imbricata, in Costa Rica Atlantic lowlands

Species composition

and functional

group richness

Light particulate organic matter C and soil C:N ratio were signiﬁcantly

higher, and total soil organic matter C was slightly higher, under H.

alchoreoides, as compared to under the other two tree species

Functional group richness had a positive effect on total and light/

particulate soil organic matter as compared to monocultures of C.

odorata and C. alliodora, but not in the case of those of H.

alchoreoides.

Russell et al. (2004)

Litter production in Catalonian traditionally managed

forests

Species richness,

species and

functional trait

composition

Litter mass larger in 2–5 species mixtures than in monospeciﬁc stand. In

mixed forests, identity of trees determined whether litter stocks increase

with tree diversity.

Vilàet al. (2004)

Simulation study of the magnitude and variability of

aboveground C sequestration in 18 scenarios of tree

species extinction within a species-rich tropical in

Panama

Species richness and

functional trait

composition

Different trait-based scenarios (e.g. order of extinction determined by

wood density, height, growth rate, drought tolerance, also a random

extinction scenario) resulted in strong differences in magnitude and

variability of C stocks

Bunker et al. (2005)

Long-term tree-planting experiment, established in 1955

in NW England; Quercus petraea,Alnus glutinosa,Pinus

sylvestris and Picea abies planted in monocultures and

in 2-spp mixtures

Species richness and

composition

All mixtures involving Pinus sylvestris showed more growth in pure stands

of either species; A. glutinosa mixtures not involving P. sylvestris did not

outperform monocultures, P. abies/Q. petraea mixture showed less

growth than monocultures

Jones et al. (2005)

(Continues)

Table 11.1 (continued)

Ecosystem type and location Main biodiversity

component involved

Findings Source

Review of the 20th century forestry literature with

emphasis on commercial trees in the temperate and

boreal zones

Species and functional

group richness

and composition

Increased productivity in mixtures of species with different spatial,

phenological or successional niches (e.g. Larix/Picea,Quercus/Betula,

Pinus/Picea,Pinus/Betula)

Pretzsch (2005)

Some mixtures (e.g. Picea abies/Betula pendula) sustain production over a

larger range of densities than monocultures and are thus more tolerant to risks

Natural and seminatural forests, plantations and

secondary woodlands in the Ecological and Forest

Inventory of Catalonia (IEFC), including 95 tree species

Species richness,

species and functional

trait composition

Stemwood production increased from single-species to

5-species stands, but stand age and richness were negatively correlated

Species richness had a signiﬁcant positive effect on stemwood production

in stands dominated by sclerophyllous species (e.g. Quercus,Arbutus),

and low-productivity conifer stands, but not deciduous species stands in

humid or warmer climates

Vilàet al. (2005)

Experimental mixed plantations of native trees Balizia

elegans,Callophyllum brasiliense,Dipteryx panamensis,

Hyeronima alchorneoide,Jacaranda copaia,Terminalia

amazonia,Virola koschny,Vochysia ferruginea and

Vochysia guatemalensis in Costa Rican tropical rainforest

Species richness Although some individual species were more productive in mixtures than in

monocultures, none of the mixtures showed signiﬁcantly higher growth

or C storage than the monocultures of the most productive species

involved in each mixture

Redondo-Brenes and

Montagnini (2006)

Monocultures were compared to 3-species mixtures, all of

them consisting of one fast-growing sp., one slow-

growing sp., and one legume, to keep functional

richness as constant as possible

More than 5000 permanent forest plots in the National

Forest Inventory of Spain in the Catalonia

region, including 51 tree species, growing in

monocultures and in 2- to 5-species mixtures

Species richness,

functional group

richness and identity

Stemwood production was positively associated with tree species richness

and with functional group identity (deciduous forests were more

productive than coniferous or sclerophyllous forests). Functional group

richness did not signiﬁcantly explain stemwood production once the

effects of environmental and structural variables were taken into account

Vilàet al. (2007)

Experimental plantations of native tropical trees

representing a range of relative growth rate (Cordia

alliodora,Luehea seemannii,Anacardium excelsum,

Hura crepitans,Cedrela odorata, and Tabebuia rosea)in

monocultures, and 3- and 6-spp. plots, in Central

Panama

Species richness and

composition

Plot biomass (estimated from basal area) did not differ between mixtures

and monocultures or among mixtures. There was a signiﬁcant species

richness effect on growth, attributed to complementarity, in the 3-species

mixtures as compared to monocultures, but there was no signiﬁcant

effect in 6-species plots. Mortality was strongly dependent on species

identity, and independent of species richness. Overall, there was a

positive complementarity effect (using the additive partitioning method of

Loreau and Hector 2001) of species richness on plot biomass and a

negative selection effect, resulting in no net species richness effect

Potvin and Gotelli

(2008)

C loss

Boreal forest trees and understorey

vegetation on Swedish lake islands

Species and functional

group richness

Species-rich islands supported less soil respiration, microbial biomass and

decomposition at large spatial scale (between islands), contributing to

net C sequestration in the soil

Some evidence of greater understorey species richness promoting these

processes within large (but not small) islands

Differences among islands in belowground processes and C sequestration

are explicable by traits of dominant plant species but not species richness

Wardle et al. (1997),

Wardle et al. (2003),

Wardle and Zackrisson

(2005)

Damage by beetle Phratora vulgatissima and rust

Melampsora spp. on ﬁve Salix genotypes in

monocultures and mixtures in regular and random

spatial arrangements

Genetic richness and

spatial

heterogeneity

Mixtures showed less damage by rust and beetles than monocultures; no

signiﬁcant effect of structural design was detected, but the trend was for

decreased damage in random conﬁgurations

Peacock et al. (2001),

Hunter et al. (2002)

Microcosms experiments using litter of nine phenotypes

of Quercus laevis in monocultures and in mixtures

Intraspeciﬁc phenotypic

richness

and composition

C and N ﬂuxes within single phenotype treatments were signiﬁcantly, but

unpredictably, different from those of mixtures

No effect of phenotype identity on soil bacterial or microarthropod

communities

Madritch and

Hunter (2002),

Madritch

and Hunter (2005)

Literature review of European forests

(especially N Europe)

Species richness and/or

composition

Different species and functional types differed in wind resistance; mixtures

were not more stable than monospeciﬁc stands against windstorms

Dhôte (2005)

Literature review of decomposition rate of single-species

litter vs. litter mixtures of several N Hemisphere tree

species

Species richness and

composition

Sometimes faster decomposition in mixtures; in other studies the effect

was similar to that predicted from the decay rates of individual species

and their relative contribution to the mixture; in two cases lower decay

rate in mixtures; different mixtures involving Pinus or Quercus showed no

consistent effect as compared to monocultures

Hättenschwiler et al.

(2005)

Meta-analysis of 54 studies of insect herbivory on trees,

with emphasis on temperate systems

Species richness and

composition

Tree species growing in mixed stands overall suffer less damage by

specialized herbivore insects than do pure stands; generalist insects

showed a highly variable response

Jactel et al. (2005)

Heterobasidium annosum (butt rot) in pure vs. mixed

stands under different climatic conditions (mostly N

Europe)

Species richness Incidence of H. annosum negatively correlated with tree species richness Korhonen et al. (1998),

as cited in

Pautasso et al. (2005)

Cronartium ribicola rust and Phellinus weirii root rot in

North American forests

Species richness and

composition

Disease spread associated with certain host tree species, rather than with

tree richness

Pautasso et al. (2005)

Literature review of boreal forests Species richness and/or

composition

Mixed stands not more resistant to ﬁre than

monospeciﬁc stands

Wirth (2005)

(Continues)

Table 11.1 (continued)

Ecosystem type and location Main biodiversity

component involved

Findings Source

Review of 26 experimental studies on the effect of the

diversity of trees in boreal forests on the damage by

invertebrate and vertebrate herbivores and pathogen

species

Tree species

richness and

composition, land-

scape heterogeneity

Species-rich stands not consistently less prone to pest outbreaks and

disease epidemics than monocultures. Composition appeared to play a

greater role than species richness per se

Koricheva et al. (2006)

Susceptibility to inspect pests decreased with increased isolation of stand

within a forest mosaic of non-host species

Experimental boreal forests of Betula pendula,Pinus

sylvestris, and Picea abies in Sweden and Finland

Species richness and

composition

Monocultures of B. pendula and mixed stands containing 25% of B.

pendula and 75% of P. sylvestris showed higher defoliation by insects

early in the season than B. pendula monocultures or 50–50 mixtures of B.

pendula and P. sylvestris. No difference between monocultures and

mixtures late in the season

Vehvilaäinen et al.

(2006)

Experimental plantations of native tropical trees

representing a range of relative growth rate (Cordia

alliodora,Luehea seemannii,Anacardium excelsum,

Hura crepitans,Cedrela odorata and Tabebuia rosea)in

monocultures, and 3- and 6-spp. plots, in Central

Panama

Species richness,

species and functional

trait composition

After c. 4 years from establishment, no consistent general effect of species

richness was found on either litter production or decomposition. Litter

production was signiﬁcantly affected by tree species richness and

identity, with the majority of intermediate-richness mixtures showing

higher litter yields than expected based on monoculture. Litter

decomposition also varied with species identity and functional attributes.

High-richness mixtures decomposed at rates that were no different from

expected on the basis of their component species. However, individual

species changed their decomposition pattern depending on the richness

of the litter mixture

Scherer-Lorenzen et al.

(2007a)

Experimental decomposition of monocultures and

mixtures of 2, 3, 4, and 5 dominant species of central

Argentina mountain woodlands, representing a range of

functional groups decomposition rates (Acacia caven,

Lithraea molleoides,Bidens pilosa,Hyptis mutabilis, and

Stipa eriostachya)

Species richness,

species and functional

trait composition

When up to ﬁve species were included, both species richness and

functional composition showed non-additive, mostly positive effects on

litter mixture decomposition. The synergistic effects of species richness

were signiﬁcant when the richness of the mixtures changed from 2 to 3–4

species. A greater positive effect was found in mixtures with higher mean

nitrogen content and a higher heterogeneity in non-labile compounds.

Litter mean quality and chemical heterogeneity were the most important

factors explaining decomposability of mixtures

Pérez Harguindeguy

et al. (2008)

11.3 Making the most of biodiversity

in the design of climate change

mitigation initiatives

The major hypotheses examined above, and the

evidence available so far, indicate that the incor-

poration of biodiversity considerations has the

potential to inﬂuence the magnitude and long-term

persistence of C-sequestration initiatives. The lead-

ing role of the functional traits of locally dominant

plant species is supported by strong evidence from

a variety of ecosystems. However, considerably

more experimental, observational, and modelling

work is needed to elucidate many speciﬁc details,

such as to what extent increasing the small-scale

species richness of reforestation or afforestation

actions can increase their ability to store C. Never-

theless, we believe that some practical recommen-

dations can already be made based on the current

level of knowledge.

Protecting primary forests is the best C seques-

tration option. For obvious practical reasons, to

date there is no published biodiversity experiment

involving formal experimental manipulation of tree

species richness beyond six species. However, pri-

mary forests usually have a larger number of species

and a wider range of plant functional attributes than

do planted forests. They also tend to be dominated

by large-sized, slow-growing species that are con-

servative with resources. Therefore, under both the

niche complementarity and mass ratio hypotheses,

we expect them to maximize C stocks. Available

evidence from the biodiversity and biogeochemistry

literature supports this idea. Primary forest ecosys-

tems represent the most important biological C sinks

on the planet in terms of both quantity and likely

stability through time (Buchmann and Schulze 1999,

Valentini et al. 2000, Schimel et al. 2001, Schulze 2005,

Luyssaert et al. 2008). With very few exceptions, they

contain larger C stocks than younger forests in all

biomes (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004, Schulze

2005). Recent studies suggest that C outputs and

inputs in primary forests are frequently not at equi-

librium, and that such forests are active, albeit

sometimes small, C sinks (Schimel et al. 2001, Schulze

et al. 2002, Sabine et al. 2004, Schulze 2005, Luyssaert

et al. 2008). In temperate and boreal zones, forests

contain large quantities of carbon and can continue

accumulating it for centuries (Luyssaert et al. 2008).

There is less empirical information for tropical for-

ests, but their C exchange appears to be approxi-

mately balanced, or even slightly positive (Schimel

2007, Stephens et al. 2007). This points to a gross sink

that compensates for emissions due to tropical

deforestation and ﬁres. Primary forests often show a

lower uptake of C per unit time than do newly

established plantations (Gower 2003) but on the

other hand they sequester it for a longer time. Also,

the process of land conversion, for example during

the establishment of a new plantation, often releases

very large amounts of C from the soil to the atmo-

sphere (Valentini et al. 2000, Guo and Gifford 2002,

Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). As a consequence,

the net balance of C sequestered per hectare is

usually more strongly positive in the case of primary

forests than for new plantations, with the beneﬁts

from the latter being more transitory and uncertain

(Schulze 2005). Primary forests are being destroyed

at accelerated rates, especially in the African and

Latin American tropics (Lambin et al. 2003, Fearnside

and Barbosa 2004, Shvidenko et al. 2005). The

amount of forested area lost is still impossible to

match by plantation initiatives, and this is likely to

continue to be the case for the next several decades.

Plantations can also involve high monetary and

environmental costs. For example, the monetary cost

of sequestering 1 Mg of C by forestation and agro-

forestry activities has been estimated as being more

than triple than that of sequestering the same

amount by conservation of already existing forests

(van Kooten et al. 2004). Another recent study shows

that monospeciﬁc plantations of fast-growing trees in

southern South America have strong negative

impacts on water supply and soil fertility (Jackson

et al. 2005). An additional reason to protect primary

forests is that changes in the functional attributes of

vegetation over large areas can affect climate directly

through water and energy exchange (Chapin et al.

2008).

The maximization of short-term C sink strength

is unlikely to be the best option for C sequestration

in the longer term. As explained in previous sections

and illustrated in Fig. 11.2, the well-supported mass

ratio hypothesis predicts that there is fairly a uni-

versal tradeoff between a suite of plant attributes

that promotes fast C and mineral nutrient

INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 163

acquisition and loss (‘acquisitive’syndrome), and

another that promotes slower acquisition but long

retention of resources within well-protected tissues

(‘conservative’syndrome). This suggests that a man-

agement regime that simultaneously maximizes rapid

C uptake from the atmosphere and its long-term

sequestration is unlikely to be found. This is directly

relevant to C sequestration initiatives, since at any

time a C-sequestering project is launched, a decision

should be made in favor of one or the other side of

the tradeoff (Aerts 1995, Caspersen and Pacala 2001,

Noss 2001). For example, early-successional, light-

demanding, fast-growing species should be selected

when the goal is to maximize short-term productivity.

However, C sequestration in the longer term will be

greater in areas dominated by later-successional spe-

ciesthatareslowergrowingbuthavedensertimber,

and whose litter decomposes more slowly. In view of

this, high sink capacity in the short term should not be

considered as the major criterion in reforestation/

afforestation initiatives. In general, careful consider-

ation of the species and genotypes chosen for each C

sequestration project is needed (Lal 2004). There are

strong ecological bases to suggest that fast-growing,

genetically homogenous, easy-to-manage, wide-

spread forestry species and genotypes (e.g. members

of Eucalyptus,Pinus,andAcacia widely planted in

South America, Africa, and East Asia) may not rep-

resent the most effective option in terms of long-term

C sequestration. Also, the choice of species and gen-

otypes with the appropriate attributes for local

(present and projected) climatic and disturbance

conditions (e.g. ﬁre proneness, storm, or frost fre-

quency) is very important. The same considerations

apply to plantations that serve as sources of solid

biofuel, although permanence is obviously less of an

issue in that case.

Mixed forestry systems might be more stable in the

face of environmental variability and directional change

than monocultures, and they might sequester C more

securely in the long term. This recommendation is

consistent with the niche complementarity hypothe-

ses, as well as the results of several experiments in

herbaceous communities. The evidence from forest

ecosystems is still inconclusive, and long-term ﬁeld-

scale experimental, observational and theoretical

studies are needed to rigorously test whether, how

generally,and for how long increasing the number of

genotypes, species and functional types can beneﬁt

afforestation, reforestation, agroforestry, secondary

forest recovery and solid biofuel plantation initia-

tives. However, thousands of years of agricultural

experience point to the use of polycultures as a

promising precaution to buffer forest production

throughout the year and also against environmental

change and variability and pest and weed damage.

Tree monocultures often, but not always, promote

less SOC accumulation than primary or secondary

forests (see Lal 2005, Jandl et al. 2007 for reviews). But

even in cases where the amount of C sequestered by

a monoculture is higher, the use of mixtures of more

than one tree species may be a good alternative for

small or medium-sized farms, especially in tropical

and subtropical areas. This is because mixed plan-

tations provide a wider range of products and

opportunities. For instance, fast-growing and slow-

growing species provide revenues in the short and

long term, respectively; different species provide

non-forest products such as fruit at different times of

the year and thus improve food security and buffer

market risks (Piotto et al. 2004, Montagnini et al.

2005). These ancillary beneﬁts of mixed plantations

and agroforestry systems increase the interest of local

stakeholders in establishing and protecting forests

and diminish incentives for changing to other land

uses (Liebman and Staver 2001, Pretty and Ball 2001,

Schroth et al. 2002, Piotto et al. 2004, Montagnini et al.

2005). Sometimes the recovery of the natural forest is

limited by animal dispersal of propagules, soil

moisture, and competition from herbaceous plants.

Mixed plantations offer an alternative in these cases.

For example, in Costa Rica, more individuals and

species of native trees were found to regenerate in

the understorey of mixed plantations than those

under monocultures (Guariguata et al. 1995, Powers

et al. 1997, Carnevale and Montagnini 2002).

Plantations established with the speciﬁc purpose of C

sequestration or biofuel production can, and should, be

compatible with biodiversity conservation. It is vitally

important that projects supported through the

CDMs or other initiatives aimed at increasing C

uptake do not come at the direct or indirect cost of

clearing natural ecosystems, and that they maintain

a high ecosystem-service value from the point of

view of local communities rather than simply

meeting the C credit priorities of external investors

164 BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING, AND HUMAN WELLBEING

(Niesten et al. 2002, Prance 2002, Fearnside 2006a).

Niesten et al. (2002), Schulze et al. (2003) and

Chadzon (2008) provide examples of forestry pro-

jects that, rather than decreasing pressure on natural

ecosystems, may contribute to their destruction, in

the name of the creation of C sinks. Agroforestry

practices have the potential to store large amounts

of C while at the same time protecting biodiversity.

For example, Brandle et al. (1992) and Noss (2001)

highlighted the potential of planted shelterbelts and

riparian forests that store C and at the same time

provide wildlife habitat and permanent regional

vegetation connectivity. Modeling efforts by Bolker

et al. (1995) and Pacala and Deutschman (1995)

suggest that species-rich and spatially heterogeneous

forests could have a C sequestration potential of up

to 50 per cent more than monospeciﬁc, spatially

homogeneous forests. As in the case of managed

forests not speciﬁcally designed for C sequestration

processes, high inter- and intraspeciﬁc genotypic

richness, the inclusion of local genotypes, and the

maintenance of a rich and heterogeneous landscape

increases the value of plantations for local societies,

and thus their willingness to protect them. This

enhances their potential to preserve their long-term

survival and C sequestration capacity (Prance 2002,

Díaz et al. 2005). On the other hand, local commu-

nities have little to win and much to lose (e.g. tra-

ditional medicine, cultural and spiritual values,

employment) from reliance on monospeciﬁcstands

of fast-growing (and often introduced) tree species

and varieties. The incorporation of what is ‘valuable

biodiversity’from the local community’spointof

view is essential for striking the right balance

between biodiversity and C sequestration and for

ensuring the long-term protection of C-sequestering

plantations (Díaz and Cáceres 2000, Prance 2002,

Saunders et al. 2002, Díaz et al. 2005, Canadell and

Raupach 2008).

Decisions about the species and genotype richness and

composition of protected or newly established plantations or

agroforestry systems should be tailored to the local context.

It is important to keep an open perspective and to

avoid mechanical application of general principles to

individual projects without careful consideration of

the resource base, prevailing disturbance conditions,

scale of the project, and attributes of the organisms

(including not only the planted species) and ecosys-

tems involved. A practical way to increase our

understanding of how, where, and why different

biodiversity components affect the C-sequestration

capacity of different ecosystems would be to incor-

porate an experimental component to climate change

mitigation and agroforestry and forest rehabilitation

initiatives (e.g. Ewel 1986, Montagnini et al. 2005,

Scherer-Lorenzen et al. 2005b). Moreover, we are

aware of a wealth of information being produced by

the forestry sector, but this is not often reﬂected in the

peer-reviewed literature. In this sense, the recent book

edited by Scherer-Lorenzen et al. (2005a) has made a

valuable contribution through making available a

large body of difﬁcult-to-access and diffuse literature

from the forestry sector. A similar effort with speciﬁc

focus on key regions (e.g. Latin America, Africa,

Southeast Asia) including the wealth of information

accumulated by governmental and non-governmen-

tal grassroots initiatives, would be valuable for help-

ing ﬁnd the best options for simultaneous C

sequestration and biodiversity protection in primary,

managed and planted forests.

11.4 Final remarks

In the past few years, the focus of international

mitigation efforts seems to have shifted from cut-

ting fossil fuel emissions to enhancing C seques-

tration, with the remarkable exception of some

actions taken during the most recent COPs (see

Introduction). The potential contribution of C

sinks to climate change mitigation is clearly less

important in terms of C released to the atmo-

sphere, than that of decreasing emissions from

fossil fuel burning (IGBP 1998, Prentice et al. 2001).

Therefore, by no means do we believe that miti-

gation initiatives are a substitute for cutting fossil

fuel emissions, however beneﬁcial for the conser-

vation of biodiversity they would be. That said,

there is considerable potential for increasing the

world’s C stocks through management practices

(Watson et al. 2000, Niles et al. 2002, Fischlin et al.

2007, Canadell and Raupach 2008). Considering

the dramatic observed and projected consequences

of climate change (IPCC 2007), we must exploit

this potential to the largest possible extent. Equally

important is making sure that C sequestration

measures do not backﬁre in the long term, for

INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 165

instance by ensuring that their overall environ-

mental costs do not offset their beneﬁts.

On the basis of the ﬁndings summarized above,

and in accordance with other authors (IGBP 1998,

Schulze et al. 2002, Schulze et al. 2003, Fearnside

2006b, Luyssaert et al. 2008), we suggest that the

conservation of natural ecosystems is the best C

sequestration option available. Natural ecosys-

tems, with their ability to simultaneously maintain

C stocks, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, and

their built-in capacity to cope with environmental

change and variability, are the ultimate ‘win-win’

climate mitigation option. There is no substitute

for the C-sequestration capacity of natural forests,

nor any practical way to reproduce the biodiversity

of some of them (Myers et al. 2000) or to substitute

for the ecosystem services they provide (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2003, Shvidenko et al. 2005).

There is evidence suggesting that their functional

composition is changing and that they are losing

species at an alarming rate due to land use change

(e.g. Sala et al. 2000, Brook et al. 2003, Gaston et al.

2003), and climate change (Parmesan and Yohe 2003,

Root et al. 2003, Lenoir et al. 2008). In view of this,

probably the best long-term C sequestration option

would be to encourage scientiﬁc and policy efforts

that preserve their integrity.

In those areas where afforestation and deforesta-

tion will not come at the cost of destroying natural

ecosystems (e.g. in degraded, not recently deforested

areas, or areas where the forest is unlikely to recover

naturally, Appanah and Weinland 1992, Montagnini

et al. 2005), our ﬁndings strongly suggest that built-in

biodiversity considerations will not only increase

their overall ecosystem-service value (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment 2003), but also speciﬁcally

enhance their long-term C sequestering capacity. In

order to make a difference for mitigating the effects of

global warming, the size, longevity, and reliability of

biological C stocks are more important considerations

than sink rates. Consequently, preserving the integ-

rity of natural systems, and building diverse systems

with a careful consideration of the most suitable

dominant and subdominant species and genotypes, is

probably the most appropriate way forward. This is

not free of technical difﬁculties, but its long-term

cost–beneﬁt ratio appears low when all economic,

social, and environmental factors are considered.

In view of this, the lack of biodiversity considera-

tions in the main body of the Kyoto Protocol is

unfortunate to say the least. Particularly worrying is

the fact that in the ﬁrst commitment period of the

CDMs only afforestation and reforestation are

included, considering that more than half of the

world’s forested area is located in developing coun-

tries and that they are facing accelerating deforesta-

tion rates (Lambin et al. 2003, Shvidenko et al. 2005). In

our view, in order to reverse this trend, biodiversity

considerations should be incorporated into C

sequestration initiatives. In this sense, the request of

some developing countries to incorporate the pro-

tection of tropical forests into the second commitment

period of the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/

resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/misc01.pdf), and the

new international interest in avoided deforestation

with explicit mention to biodiversity (e.g. REDD) are

signs that the tide might be turning towards a more

positive direction.

Acknowledgements

This chapter greatly beneﬁted from input by D. E.

Bunker, O. Canziani, and N. Pérez-Harguindeguy,

and from critical review by M. Loreau. It is a

product of Núcleo DiverSus (endorsed by

DIVERSITAS and the Global Land Project). It has

also beneﬁted from fruitful interactions between

its authors and the participants in the DIVERSI-

TAS ECOServices Meeting ‘Biodiversity and Car-

bon Sequestration’(7–10 September 2005, Danum

Valley Field Centre, Sabbah). SD was supported

by FONCyT, CONICET, Universidad Nacional de

Córdoba (Argentina), the J. S. Guggenheim Memo-

rial Foundation and the Inter-American Institute for

Global Change Research (CRN II 2015, supported by

the US National Science Foundation Grant GEO-

0452325) while carrying out research leading to this

chapter.

166 BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING, AND HUMAN WELLBEING

7 The analysis of biodiversity experiments: from pattern

toward mechanism 94

Andy Hector, Thomas Bell, John Connolly, John Finn, Jeremy Fox,

Laura Kirwan, Michel Loreau, Jennie McLaren, Bernhard Schmid,

and Alexandra Weigelt

8 Towards a food web perspective on biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning 105

Bradley Cardinale, Emmett Duffy, Diane Srivastava, Michel Loreau,

Matt Thomas, and Mark Emmerson

9 Microbial biodiversity and ecosystem functioning under

controlled conditions and in the wild 121

Thomas Bell, Mark O. Gessner, Robert I. Grifﬁths, Jennie McLaren,

Peter J. Morin, Marcel van der Heijden, and Wim van der Putten

10 Biodiversity as spatial insurance: the effects of habitat

fragmentation and dispersal on ecosystem functioning 134

Andrew Gonzalez, Nicolas Mouquet, and Michel Loreau

Part 3: Ecosystem services and human wellbeing 147

11 Incorporating biodiversity in climate change mitigation initiatives 149

Sandra Dı

´az, David A. Wardle, and Andy Hector

12 Restoring biodiversity and ecosystem function: will an integrated

approach improve results? 167

Justin Wright, Amy Symstad, James M. Bullock, Katharina Engelhardt,

Louise Jackson, and Emily Bernhardt

13 Managed ecosystems: biodiversity and ecosystem functions in

landscapes modiﬁed by human use 178

Louise Jackson, Todd Rosenstock, Matthew Thomas, Justin Wright,

and Amy Symstad

14 Understanding the role of species richness for crop pollination services 195

Alexandra-Maria Klein, Christine Mu

¨ller, Patrick Hoehn, and Claire Kremen

15 Biodiversity and ecosystem function: perspectives on disease 209

Richard S. Ostfeld, Matthew Thomas, and Felicia Keesing

16 Opening communities to colonization – the impacts of invaders on

biodiversity and ecosystem functioning 217

Katharina Engelhardt, Amy Symstad, Anne-Helene Prieur-Richard,

Matthew Thomas, and Daniel E. Bunker

vi CONTENTS

17 The economics of biodiversity and ecosystem services 230

Charles Perrings, Stefan Baumga

¨rtner, William A. Brock, Kanchan Chopra, Marc Conte,

Christopher Costello, Anantha Duraiappah, Ann P. Kinzig, Unai Pascual, Stephen Polasky,

John Tschirhart, and Anastasios Xepapadeas

18 The valuation of ecosystem services 248

Edward B. Barbier, Stefan Baumga

¨rtner, Kanchan Chopra, Christopher Costello, Anantha

Duraiappah, Rashid Hassan, Ann P. Kinzig, Markus Lehman, Unai Pascual, Stephen Polasky,

and Charles Perrings

19 Modelling biodiversity and ecosystem services in coupled

ecological–economic systems 263

William A. Brock, David Finnoff, Ann P. Kinzig, Unai Pascual, Charles Perrings,

John Tschirhart, and Anastasios Xepapadeas

Part 4: Summary and synthesis 279

20 TraitNet: furthering biodiversity research through the curation,

discovery, and sharing of species trait data 281

Shahid Naeem and Daniel E. Bunker

21 Can we predict the effects of global change on biodiversity loss

and ecosystem functioning? 290

Shahid Naeem, Daniel E. Bunker, Andy Hector, Michel Loreau,

and Charles Perrings

References 299

Index 357

CONTENTS vii

Contributors

Patricia Balvanera, Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosis-

temas, Universidad Nacional Auto

´noma de Me

´xico,

Apdo. Postal 27-3, Sta. Ma. de Guido, Morelia,

Michoaca

´n, Me

´xico 58090; pbalvane@oikos.unam.mx

Edward B. Barbier, University of Wyoming, Department

of Economics and Finance, Department 3985, Ross Hall

123, Laramie, WY 82071, USA; ebarbier@uwyo.edu

Stefan Baumga

¨rtner, Leuphana Universita

¨tLu

¨neburg

Centre for Sustainability ManagementPostfach 2440 D-

21314 Lu

¨neburg, Germany; baumgaertner@leuphana.de

Thomas Bell, Department of Zoology, University of

Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK;

thomas.bell@zoo.ox.ac.uk

Emily Bernhardt, Department of Biology, Box 90388,

Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA; ebern-

har@duke.edu

William A. Brock, University of Wisconsin, Madison –

Department of Economics, 1180 Observatory Drive,

Madison, WI 53706, USA; wbrock@ssc.wisc.edu

Daniel E. Bunker, Department of Biological Sciences,

New Jersey Institute of Technology, 433 Colton Hall,

University Heights, Newark, NJ 07102-1982, USA;

dbunker@njit.edu

Bradley J. Cardinale, Department of Ecology, Evolution

and Marine Biology, University of California at Santa

Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA; cardi-

nale@lifesci.ucsb.edu

Kanchan Chopra, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi

University Enclave, Delhi – 110 007, India; kan-

chan@iegindia.org

John Connolly, Environmental and Ecological Modelling

Group, UCD School of Mathematical Sciences, Dublin,

Ireland; john.connolly@ucd.ie

Marc Conte, Environmental Science & Management, Uni-

versity of California Santa Barbara, 4410 Bren Hall,Santa

Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA; conte@bren.ucsb.edu

Christopher Costello, Donald Bren School of Environ-

mental Science & Management, University of California

Santa Barbara, 4410 Bren Hall,Santa Barbara, CA 93106-

5131, USA; costello@bren.ucsb.edu

Sandra Dı

´az, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biologı

´a

Vegetal (CONICET-UNC) and FCEFyN, Universidad

Nacional de Co

´rdoba, Casilla de Correo 495, 5000

´rdoba, Argentina; sdiaz@com.uncor.edu

J. Emmett Duffy, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,

The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA

23062-1346, USA; jeduffy@vims.edu

Anantha Duraiappah, Ecosystem Services Economics

Unit, Division of Environmental Policy Implementa-

tion, United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP),United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, PO Box 30552,

00100Nairobi, Kenya;anantha.duraiappah@unep.org

Mark C. Emmerson, Environmental Research Institute,

University College Cork, Lee Road, Cork, Ireland, and

Department of Zoology, Ecology and Plant Science

Distillery Fields, North Mall, University College Cork,

Ireland; emerson@ucc.ie

Katharina Engelhardt, University of Maryland Center for

Environmental Science, Appalachian Laboratory, 301

Braddock Road, Frostburg, MD 21532, USA; engel-

hardt@al.umces.edu

John Finn, Teagasc, Environment Research Centre, Johns-

town Castle, Wexford Ireland; john.ﬁnn@teagasc.ie

David Finnoff, University of Wyoming, Department of

Economics and Finance, Department 3985, Ross Hall

123, Laramie, WY 82071, USA; Finnoff@uwyo.edu

Dan F. B. Flynn, Department of Ecology, Evolution and

Environmental Biology (E3B), Columbia University,

Schermerhorn Extension, 10th Floor, Mail Code 5557,

1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA;

dff2101@columbia.edu

Jeremy Fox, Department of Biological Sciences, University

of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta

T2N 1N4 Canada; jefox@ucalgary.ca

Mark O. Gessner, Department of Aquatic Ecology, Eawag:

Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science & Technology,

8600 Du

¨bendorf, Switzerland and Institute of Integrative

Biology (IBZ), ETH Zurich, 8600 Du

¨bendorf, Switzerland

Jasmin A. Godbold, Oceanlab, University of Aberdeen,

Main Street, Newburgh, Aberdeenshire, AB41 6AA,

UK; j.a.godbold@abdn.ac.uk

viii

Andrew Gonzalez, Department of Biology, McGill

University, 1205 Dr., Penﬁeld Avenue, Montreal, H3A

1B1, Canada; andrew.gonzalez@mcgill.ca

John N. Grifﬁn, Marine Biological Association of the

United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Ply-

mouth PL1 2PB, UK and Marine Biology and Ecology

Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, Uni-

versity of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK

Robert I. Grifﬁths, Molecular Microbial Ecology Section,

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Oxford), Mansﬁeld

Road, Oxford OX1 3SR, UK

Rashid Hassan, Dept of Agricultural Economics Exten-

sion and Rural Development, University of Pretoria,

PRETORIA 0002, South Africa;rashid.hassan@up.ac.za

Andy Hector, Institute of Environmental Sciences,

University of Zurich, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland;

ahector@uwinst.uni.ch

Patrick Hoehn, Department of Crop Science, Agroecology,

University of Go

¨ttingen, Waldweg 26, 37073 Go

¨ttingen,

Germany

Louise Jackson, Department of Land, Air and Water

Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616,

USA; lejackson@ucdavis.edu

Stuart R. Jenkins, School of Ocean Sciences, University

Bangor Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5AB, UK

Kate E. Jones, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of

London and Cambridge University, Regent’s Park,

London NW1 4RY, UK

Felicia Keesing, Biology Program, Bard College, Annan-

dale-on-Hudson, NY 12504, USA

Ann P. Kinzig, ecoSERVICES Group, School of Life Sci-

ences, Arizona State University, Box 874501, Tempe, AZ

85287-4501, USA; kinzig@asu.edu

Laura Kirwan, Teagasc, Environment Research Centre,

Johnstown Castle, Wexford Ireland; Laura.Kirwan@

teagasc.ie

Alexandra-Maria Klein, Department of Environmental

Science, Policy and Management, 137 Mulford Hall,

University of California at Berkeley, California 94720-

3114, USA and Department of Crop Science, Agro-

ecology, University of Go

¨ttingen, Waldweg 26, 37073

¨ttingen, Germany

Claire Kremen, Department of Environmental Science,

Policy and Management, 137 Mulford Hall, University

of California at Berkeley, California 94720-3114, USA

Markus Lehmann, Secretariat of the Convention on Bio-

logical Diversity, 413, Saint Jacques Street, suite 800

Montreal QC, H2Y 1N9, Canada; markus.leh-

mann@cbd.int

Michel Loreau,DepartmentofBiology,McGillUniversity,

1205 ave Docteur Penﬁeld, Montreal, Que

´bec H3A 1B1,

Canada; michel.loreau@mcgill.ca

Jennie R. McLaren, Department of Botany, University of

British Columbia, #3529-6270 University Boulevard,

Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada; jmclaren@

interchange.ubc.ca.

Peter J. Morin, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and

Natural Resources, Rutgers Cook College, 148 ENRS

Building, Cook Campus, 14 College Farm Road, New

Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

Nicolas Mouquet, ISEM-UMR 5554, University of

Montpellier II, Place Eugene Bataillon, CC065, 34095

Montpellier Cedex 05, France

Christine Mu

¨ller, Institute of Environmental Sciences,

University of Zu

¨rich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057

¨rich, Switzerland

Shahid Naeem, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and

Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 1200

Amsterdam Ave, MC 5557, New York, NY 10025, USA;

sn2121@columbia.edu

Eoin J. O’Gorman, Environmental Research Institute, Lee

Road Cork, Ireland, and Department of Zoology, Ecology

and Plant Science, Distillery Fields, North Mall,

University College Cork, Ireland; e.ogorman@mars.ucc.ie

Richard S. Ostfeld, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies,

PO Box AB, Millbrook, NY 12545, USA

Unai Pascual, Department of Land Economy, University

of Cambridge, 19 Silver Street, Cambridge, CB3 9EP,

UK; up211@cam.ac.uk

Charles Perrings, ecoSERVICES Group, School of Life

Sciences, Arizona State University, Box 874501, Tempe,

AZ 85287-4501, USA; Charles.Perrings@asu.edu

Owen L. Petchey, Department of Animal and Plant

Sciences, Alfred Denny Building, University of Shef-

ﬁeld, Western Bank, Shefﬁeld S10 2TN, UK; o.petchey@

shefﬁeld.ac.uk

Andrea B. Pﬁsterer, Institute of Environmental Sciences,

Universita

¨tZu

¨rich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057

¨rich, Switzerland; pﬁsterer@uwinst.unizh.ch

Stephen Polasky, Department of Applied Economics,

University of Minnesota, 1994 Buford Avenue, St Paul,

MN 55108, USA; polasky@umn.edu

Anne-Helene Prieur-Richard, DIVERSITAS, Muse

´um

National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), 57 Rue Cuvier –

CP 41, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France; anne-helene@

diversitas-international.org

David Raffaelli, Environment Department, University of

York, York, UK; dr3@york.ac.uk

Todd Rosenstock, Department of Plant Sciences,

University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA;

trosenstock@ucdavis.edu

Mahesh Sankaran, Institute of Integrative and Compar-

ative Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University

of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

CONTRIBUTORS ix

Bernhard Schmid, Institute of Environmental Sciences,

Universita

¨tZu

¨rich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057

¨rich, Switzerland; bernhard.schmid@ uwinst.uzh.ch

Martin Solan, Oceanlab, University of Aberdeen, Main

Street, Newburgh, Aberdeenshire, Scotland AB41 6AA,

UK; m.solan@abdn.ac.uk

Diane S. Srivastava, Department of Zoology, University

of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T

1Z4, Canada; srivast@zoology.ubc.ca

Amy Symstad, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie

Wildlife Research Center, 306 East Saint Joseph Street,

Suite 210, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA and U.S.

Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

Center, 26611 U.S. Highway 385, Hot Springs, SD 57747,

USA; asymstad@usgs.gov

Matthew Thomas, Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics

and Department of Entomology, 1 Chemical Ecology Lab,

Penn State, University Park 16802, PA, USA; mbt13@psu.

edu and Matthew Thomas, CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box

1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; matthew.tho-

mas@csiro.au

John Tschirhart, University of Wyoming, Department of

Economics and Finance, Department 3985, Ross Hall

123, Laramie, WY 82071, USA; tsch@uwyo.edu

Marcel van der Heijden, Ecological Farming systems

Research Station ART, Agroscope Reckenholz Tanikon,

Reckenholzstrasse191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland andVrije

Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Earth and Life Sci-

ences, Institute of Ecological Science, Department of

Animal Ecology, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HVAmsterdam,

The Netherlands

Wim H. van der Putten, Netherlands Institute for Ecology

(NIOO-KNAW), Centrefor Terrestrial Ecology, P.O. Box 40,

6666 ZG Heteren, The Netherlands and Laboratory of

Nematology, Wageningen University and Research Centre,

PO Box 8123, 6700 ES Wageningen, The Netherlands

David A. Wardle, Department of Forest Ecology

and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural

Sciences, SE901-83 Umea

˚, Sweden

Alexandra Weigelt, Institute of Ecology, University

of Jena, Dornburgerstr. 159, 07743 Jena, Germany;

alexandra. weigelt@uni-jena.de.

Justin Wright, Department of Biology, Box 90338, Duke

University, Durham, NC 27708, USA; jw67@duke.edu

Anastasios Xepapadeas, University of Economics and

Business Department of International and European

Economic Studies 76 Patission Street, 104 34 Athens,

Greece; xepapad@aueb.gr

xCONTRIBUTORS

Preface

This volume serves as an introduction, reference, and

survey both of the profound transformation experi-

enced in the last decade by ecology’s fast-growing

ﬁeld of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and

of the economics of ecosystem services. Motivated in

the early 1990s by environmental concerns over

worldwide declines in biodiversity, the biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning research area originated

as a synthesis of the relatively disparate ﬁelds of

community and ecosystem ecology. Neither disci-

pline by itself could adequately describe the wide

array of possible ecological consequences of biodi-

versity loss (Loreau et al. 2001, Naeem et al. 2002,

Hooper et al. 2005). The ﬁrst generation of research on

biodiversity and ecosystem functioningrapidly grew

into a discipline that can be characterized by several

features (Loreau et al. 2002). First, species or func-

tional group richness was the primary way of oper-

ationally deﬁning and manipulating biodiversity.

Second, many studies often worked within a single

trophic level (usually plants), though microcosm and

mesocosm studies using microbes and invertebrates

proved exceptions. Third, research efforts considered

only biogeochemical processes, especially primary

productivity, as ecosystem functions. Fourth, the

prevailing mechanisms were limited to niche com-

plementarity (i.e. niche differences lead to greater

exploitation of available resources that lead to greater

levels of ecosystem functioning) and selection effects

(i.e. higher diversity communities invariably contain

one or a few dominant species with disproportionate

inﬂuences over ecosystem function) that were often

viewed as opposing hypotheses vying for suprem-

acy. Fifth, local extinction or biodiversity loss was

largely considered a random process and experi-

ments focused on producing as many randomly

constructed species combinations as possible to

explore how biodiversity loss inﬂuenced ecosystem

functioning. Sixth, the research was largely experi-

mental, complex, abstract, and conﬁrmatory in

nature (i.e. simply conﬁrming that changes in biodi-

versity did indeed change ecosystem functioning).

Finally, work on biodiversity and ecosystem func-

tioning was colored by a tremendous debate over

interpretation of its ﬁndings.

Over the last few years, however, biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning research has evolved

dramatically. This volume provides a thorough

review of the new face presented by the second

generation of biodiversity and ecosystem function-

ing research. Its 21 chapters are written by more than

60 authors who have been at the forefront of this

transition. Virtually everything that characterized

the ﬁrst generation of biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning research has changed. First, rather than

species or functional group richness, the new focus is

on trait-based, functional biodiversity, as well as on

community composition. Second, biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning studies are increasingly

multi-trophic and span both terrestrial and marine

ecosystems in comparison to the dominance of ter-

restrial plant studies that typiﬁed earlier biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning work. Third, trait-based

mechanisms of ecosystem functioning have become a

major thrust for contemporary biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning research, while niche com-

plementarity and selection effects are considered to

be co-occurring (not conﬂicting) mechanisms.

Fourth, rather than assuming random local extinc-

tions, much new work on biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning employs trait-based extinction probabil-

ities or increasingly uses empirical extinction sce-

narios to establish its biodiversity gradients. Fifth,

compared to the more abstract deliberations of the

ﬁrst generation of biodiversity and ecosystem func-

tioning research, there is now much more attention to

the role of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in

restoration ecology, agriculture, invasions, disease,

pollination, climate change, and other ecosystem-

service-related environmental issues. Finally, con-

sensus has been achieved (Loreau et al. 2001, Hooper

et al. 2005) and the debate that once clouded the

interpretation of biodiversity and ecosystem func-

tioning ﬁndings has largely abated.

There are also entirely new features of the

second generation of biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning research as well. Enough studies have

now accumulated to allow meta-analyses, which

obviate the sometimes subjective interpretation of

trends in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

experiments expressed during the earlier conten-

tious period. Second, in silico, trait-based simula-

tion modeling of biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning relationships at larger scales has aug-

mented the complex and costly combinatorial

experimental approach and represents an entirely

new and promising method for large-scale biodi-

versity and ecosystem functioning research. Third,

metacommunity theory applied to biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning provides additional under-

standing of ecosystem complexity and stability.

Beyond the basic science of biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning, this volume also explores

the current state of the economics of biodiversity

and ecosystem services. With antecedents in both

natural resource and ecological economics, this

ﬁeld of economics incorporates insights from

ecology to build an understanding of the ways in

which biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

contribute to human wellbeing. The ﬁeld received

a major stimulus from the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment’s (2005b) focus on ecosystem services –

the beneﬁts that people derive from the processes

and functioning of both ‘natural’ and ‘managed’

ecosystems. By conceptualizing ecosystem pro-

cesses and functioning as factors in the production

of ecosystem services that directly or indirectly

beneﬁt people, the Millennium Ecosystem Assess-

ment has brought many ecological questions

within the realm of economics. For example, it has

made it natural to analyze the trade-offs (in terms

of ecosystem services) of alternative ecological

conﬁgurations. At the same time it has com-

pelled economists to pay serious attention to the

ecological stocks and ﬂows that underpin the

production of many ecosystem services. This

volume explains and expands upon the ways in

which the new face of biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning research is interfacing with research

into the decisions that people make about how to

use the resources of the environment.

The contents of this volume

In 2000, the National Science Foundation (NSF) fun-

ded a Research Coordinating Network (RCN) enti-

tled ‘Biotic Mechanisms of Ecosystem Regulation in

the Global Environment’ (BioMERGE) to foster col-

laboration and usher biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning research through its maturation phase

(Naeem et al. 2007). The relationship between biodi-

versity and ecosystem functioning is also the central

theme of the ecoSERVICES core project of DIVER-

SITAS (http://www.diversitas-international.org/),

an international programme that promotes biodi-

versity science and aims to bridge the science and

policy interface. This volume is the ﬁnal product of a

ﬁve-year collaboration between BioMERGE and

DIVERSITAS.

The volume is divided into four sections. The

ﬁrst section, Introduction, Background, and Meta-

Analyses, provides the background for the volume.

The editors provide the background, historical

context, and an overview of the volume’s content

in Chapter 1, followed by a meta-analysis by

Schmid et al. (Chapter 2) that quantitatively tests

several biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

hypotheses using the enormous body of published

experimental studies. The last chapter in this sec-

tion is an historical and quantitative analysis of the

impact of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

research by Solan et al. (Chapter 3) that quantita-

tively tests several biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning hypotheses using the enormous body

of published experimental studies.

The second section, Natural Science Foundations,

consists of seven chapters. In Chapter 4, Petchey et al.

describe one of the major contributions of biodiver-

sity and ecosystem functioning research to ecology:

an increasing emphasis on functional diversity.

Petchey et al. illustrate both the advantages and

challenges of focusing on functional diversity by

xii PREFACE

reviewing how authors have attempted to quantify

functional diversity. Duffy et al. (Chapter 5),

consider how functional diversity has transformed

biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research

from a largely conﬁrmatory science to one that is

increasingly predictive.

The remaining chapters of the second section

address universal challenges for all of ecology, in

the context of biodiversity and ecosystem func-

tioning. These are stability and complexity (Chap-

ter 6 by Grifﬁn et al.), identifying the mechanisms

generating ecological relationships (Chapter 7 by

Hector et al.), the importance of trophic structure

(Chapter 8 by Cardinale et al.), microbial ecology

(Chapter 9 by Bell et al.), and the importance of the

spatial dimension and metacommunities in deter-

mining the effects of diversity on ecosystem func-

tioning (Chapter 10 by Gonzalez et al.).

The third section takes research on biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning further than it has ever

gone into the human dimension. The ﬁrst six

chapters cover the most pressing environmental

challenges humanity faces. Notably, these chapters

also highlight a new emphasis on ecosystem ser-

vices that go beyond the historic focus on primary

productivity. Dı

´az et al. consider the effects of bio-

diversity on the carbon cycle (Chapter 11) as a way

to shed light on anthropogenic climate change that

has been largely devoid of considerations of biodi-

versity. Wright et al. consider the role that diversity

may play in fostering the restoration of degraded or

abandoned habitats (Chapter 12). Jackson et al.

(Chapter 13) consider the importance of biodiversity

in the agricultural ecosystems that now cover one

third of Earth’s terrestrial surfaces, and focus on

biological control as a case study. Klein et al.

(Chapter 14) discuss the critical ecosystem service of

pollination, which is equally important for many

crops as well as unmanaged or restored systems.

The mitigation of disease (Chapter 15 by Ostfeld et

al.) and biological invasions (Chapter 16 by Engel-

hardt et al.) are two other biotic ecosystem services

that are strongly inﬂuenced by biodiversity.

What truly makes this volume unique are the

chapters of Section 3, which consider the eco-

nomic perspective. Perrings et al. (Chapter 17)

provide a synthesis of the economics of ecosystem

services and biodiversity, and the options open to

policy-makers to address the failure of markets

to account for the loss of ecosystem services.

Barbier et al. (Chapter 18) examine the challenges

of valuing ecosystem services and, hence, to

understanding the human consequences of deci-

sions that neglect these services. Brock et al.

(Chapter 19) examine the ways in which econo-

mists are currently incorporating biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning research into decision

models for the conservation and management of

biodiversity.

The fourth and ﬁnal section consists of two

chapters, one describing the new, ambitious

direction of biodiversity and ecosystem function-

ing research to become a global science (Chapter

20) and a synthesis of this volume (Chapter 21) by

the editors that describes the nature of the progress

made thus far and the future directions and chal-

lenges that have been covered by the many authors

of this volume.

PREFACE xiii

Acknowledgments

This volume is the summation of ﬁve years of coop-

eration among biodiversity and ecosystem function-

ing researchers and environmental economists

fostered through joint meetings between BioMERGE

and BESTNet (NSF-funded Research Coordination

Networks) and the ecoSERVICES project of DIVER-

SITAS. This collaboration was founded on the prin-

ciples of inclusiveness (i.e. including participants

irrespective of their position on the issues), attention

to balance across the various stages in scientiﬁc

careers (i.e. include graduate students, postdoctoral

researchers, junior and senior faculty), and gender

balance.

Justin Wright, the ﬁrst associate director of

BioMERGE, coordinated meetings in Seattle (2002)

and the Missouri Botanical Garden (2003). Daniel

Bunker, the second associate director of BioMERGE,

and Andy Hector, the then co-chair of DIVERSITAS’

ecoSERVICES core project, coordinated meetings in

Borneo (2005) and Switzerland (2006) with the help

of Chris Philipson, Glen Reynolds, Philipppe Saner,

and Maja Weilenmann. Two ecoSERVICES work-

shops in Paris, coordinated by John Tschirhardt

(2005) and Charles Perrings (2007), laid the

groundwork for the economic chapters included in

the volume.

The bulk of the funding for BioMERGE came

from NSF grants # 0130289 and 0435178 with addi-

tional support from the University of Washington,

Seattle, and Columbia University. Funding for

BESTNet came from NSF grant # 0639252. DIVER-

SITAS contributed both ﬁnancial and logistical sup-

port to a number of the preparatory workshops, and

in particular supported the participation of non-US

participants. This volume and its contents serves as a

testament to the value of supporting international

cooperation, integration, and synthesis among social

and natural scientists in basic and applied research.

xiv

References

Aarssen, L. W. (1997) High productivity in grassland

ecosystems: effected by species diversity or productive

species? Oikos,80, 183–4.

Abhilasha, D., Quintana, N., Vivanco, J., and Joshi, J.

(2008) Do allelopathic compounds in invasive Solidago

Canadensis S. l. restrain the native European ﬂora?

Journal of Ecology,96, 993–1001.

Achtman, M. and Wagner, M. (2008) Microbial diversity

and the genetic nature of microbial species. Nature

Reviews Microbiology,6, 431–40.

Ackerly, D. D. (2004) Adaptation, niche conservatism, and

convergence: comparative studies of leaf evolution in the

California chaparral. American Naturalist,163,654–71.

Ackerly, D. D. and Cornwell, W. K. (2007) A trait-based

approach to community assembly: partitioning of spe-

cies trait values into within- and among-community

components. Ecology Letters,10, 135–45.

Ackerly, D. D., Knight, C. A., Weiss, S. B., Barton, K., and

Starmer, K. P. (2002) Leaf size, specific leaf area and

microhabitat distribution of chaparral woody plants:

contrasting patterns in species level and community

level analyses. Oecologia,130, 449–57.

Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R.,

and Rockström, J. (2005) Social-ecological resilience to

coastal disasters. Science 309, 1036–9.

Aerts, R. (1995) The advantages of being evergreen. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution,10, 402–7.

Aerts, R. (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter

decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular

relationship. Oikos,79, 439–49.

Aerts, R. and Chapin, F. S. (2000) The mineral nutrition of

wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and

patterns. Advances in Ecological Research,30,1–67.

Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L., and Aizen, M. A.

(2006) Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat frag-

mentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis.

Ecology Letters,9,968–80.

Aide, T. M. and Grau, H. R. (2004) ECOLOGY: enhanced:

globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosys-

tems. Science,305, 1915–16.

Aigner, P. A. (2004) Ecological and genetic effects on

demographic processes: pollination, clonality and seed

production in Dithyrea maritima.Biological Conservation,

116,27–34.

Aizen, M. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Cunningham, S. A., and

Klein, A. M. (2008a) Long-term global trends in crop

yield and production reveal no current pollination

shortage but increasing pollinator dependency. Current

Biology,18,1–4.

Aizen, M. A., Morales, C. L., and Morales, J. M. (2008b)

Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS

Biol,6(2), e31.

Albert, R. and Barabasi, A. L. (2002) Statistical mechanics

of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics,74,

47–97.

Albrecht, M., Duelli, P., Müller, C. B., Kleijn, D., and

Schmid, B. (2006) The Swiss agri-environment scheme

enhances pollinator diversity and plant reproductive

success in nearby intensively managed farmland. Journal

of Applied Ecology,76, 1015–25.

Allen, B. P. and Loomis, J. B. (2006) Deriving values for the

ecological support function of wildlife: an indirect

valuation approach. Ecological Economics,56,49–57.

Allen, M. F., Swenson, W., Querejeta, J. I., Egerton-

Warburton, L. M., and Treseder, K. K. (2003) Ecology

of mycorrhizae: a conceptual framework for complex

interactions among plants and fungi. Annual Review of

Phytopathology,41,271–303.

Allison, G. (2004) The influence of species diversity and

stress intensity on community resistance and resilience.

Ecological Monographs,74, 117–34.

Allison, G. W. (1999) The implications of experimental

design for biodiversity manipulations. American Natu-

ralist,153,26–45.

Alpert, P. (2006) The advantages and disadvantages of

being introduced. Biological Invasions,8, 1523–34.

Altieri, M. (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in

agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environ-

ment,74,19–31.

Altieri, M. (2004) Linking ecologists and traditional farm-

ers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment,2,35–42.

Amano, T. and Yamaura, Y. (2007) Ecological and life-

history traits related to range contractions among

299

REFERENCES CORRESPOND TO THE WHOLE BOOK

breeding birds in Japan. Biological Conservation,137,

271–82.

Amarasekare, P. (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially

structured environments: a synthesis. Ecology Letters,6,

1109–22.

Anderson, C. B. and Rosemond, A. D. (2007) Ecosystem

engineering by invasive exotic beavers reduces in-

stream diversity and enhances ecosystem function in

Cape Horn, Chile. Oecologia,154, 141–53.

Anderson, J. M. (1991) The effects of climate change on

decomposition processes in grassland and coniferous

forests. Ecological Applications,1, 326–47.

Anderson, J. E., Kriedemann, P. E., Austin, M. P., and

Farquhar, G. D. (2000) Eucalypts forming a canopy

functional type in dry sclerophyll forests respond

differentially to environment. Australian Journal of

Botany,48,759–75.

Anderson, P. K., Cunningham, A. A., Patel, N. G., Morales,

F. J., Epstein, P. R., and Daszak, P. (2004) Emerging

infectious diseases of plants: pathogen pollution, climate

change, and agrotechnology drivers. Trends in Ecology

and Evolution,119, 535–44.

Ando, A. (1999) Waiting to be protected under the

Endangered Species Act: The political economy of reg-

ulatory delay. Journal of Law and Economics,42,29–60.

Andow, D. A. (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod

population response. Annual Review of Entomology,36,

561–86.

Andrén, H. (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on

birds and mammals in landscapes with different

proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos,71,

355–66.

Angermeier, P. L. (1995) Ecological attributes of extinction-

prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of Virginia.

Conservation Biology,9, 143–58.

Annan, K. A. (2000) We, the Peoples: The Role of the United

Nations in the 21st Century. United Nations, New York.

Appanah, S. and Weinland, G. (1992) Will the manage-

ment systems for hill Dipterocarp forests stand up?

Journal of Tropical Forest Science,3, 140–58.

Armbrecht, I. and Perfecto, I. (2003) Litter-twig dwelling

ant species richness and predation potential within a

forest fragment and neighboring coffee plantations of

contrasting habitat quality in Mexico. Agriculture Eco-

systems & Environment,97, 107–15.

Armbrecht, I., Rivera, L., and Perfecto, I. (2005) Reduced

diversity and complexity in the leaf-litter ant assemblage

of Colombian coffee plantations. Conservation Biology,19,

897–907.

Armington, P. (1969) A theory of demand for products

distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Papers,

16, 158–76.

Armstrong, R. A. (1976) Fugitive species –experiments

with fungi and some theoretical considerations. Ecology,

57, 953–63.

Armsworth, P. R. and Roughgarden, J. (2003) The eco-

nomic value of ecological stability. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,100, 7147–51.

Aronson, J. and Van Andel, J. (2005) Challenges for eco-

logical theory. In Van Andel, J. and Aronson, J. (eds. )

Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier. Blackwell Pub-

lishing, Malden, MA.

Aronson, M. F. J., Handel, S. N., and Clemants, S. E. (2007)

Fruit type, life form and origin determine the success of

woody plant invaders in an urban landscape. Biological

Invasions,9, 465–75.

Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., et al. (1995) Economic

growth, carrying capacity and the environment. Science,

268, 520–1.

Ashman, T. L., Knight, T. M., Steets, J. A., Amarasekare, P.,

Burd, M., Campbell, D. R., et al. (2004) Pollen limitation

of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary cau-

ses and consequences. Ecology,85, 2408–21.

Austin, A. T. (2002) Differential effects of precipitation on

production and decomposition along a rainfall gradient

in Hawaii. Ecology,83, 328–38.

Austin, M. P. (1999) The potential contribution of vegeta-

tion ecology to biodiversity research. Ecography,22,

465–84.

Aylward, B. Allen, K., Echeverria, J., and Tosi, J. (1996)

Sustainable ecotourism in Costa Rica: The Monte Verde

Cloud Forest Preserve. Biodiversity and Conservation,5(3),

315–43.

Backhed, F., Ding, H., Wang, T., Hooper, L. V., L. V. Koh,

L. V., Nagy, A., Semenkovich, C. F., and Gordon, J. I.

(2004) The gut microbiota as an environmental factor

that regulates fat storage. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA,101, 15718–23.

Bacompte, J., Jordano, P., and Olesen, J. M. (2006) Asym-

metric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity

maintenance. Science,312, 431–3.

Bady, P., Doledec, S., Fesl, C., Gayraud, S., Bacchi, M., and

Scholl, F. (2005) Use of invertebrate traits for the bio-

monitoring of european large rivers: the effects of sam-

pling effort on genus richness and functional diversity.

Freshwater Biology,50, 159–73.

Bai, Y., Xingguo, H., Jianguo, W., Zuozhong, C., and

Linghao, L. (2004) Ecosystem stability and compensa-

tory effects inthe Inner Mongolia grassland. Nature,431,

181–4.

Bailey, P. (2007) On the trail of a killer. UC Davis Mag-

azine,24.

Bais, H. P., Vepachedu, R., Gilroy, S., Callaway, R. M., and

Vivanco, J. M. (2003) Allelopathy and exotic plant

300 REFERENCES

invasion: from molecules and genes to species interac-

tions. Science,301, 1377–80.

Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., et al. (2002) Economic

reasons for conserving wild nature. Science,297, 950–3.

Balvanera, P., Kremen, C., and Martinez-Ramos, M. (2005)

Applying community structure analysis to ecosystem

function: examples from pollination and carbon storage.

Ecological Applications,15, 360–75.

Balvanera, P., Pfisterer, A. B., Buchmann, N., et al. (2006)

Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on eco-

system functioning and services. Ecology Letters,9, 1146–56.

Barbarika, A. (2005) FY 2005 Annual Crop Contract Sum-

mary. Natural Resources Analysis Group, Economic and

Policy Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency. USDA.

Barber, C. B., Dobkin, D. P., and Huhdanpaa, H. (1996)

The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls. ACM Trans-

actions on Mathematical Software,22, 469–83.

Barbier, E. B. (1992) Community-based development in

Africa. In T. M. Swanson and E. Barbier (eds. ) Economics

for the Wilds: Wildlife, Wildlands, Diversity, and Develop-

ment, pp. 103–35. Earthscan, London.

Barbier, E. B. (1994) Valuing environmental functions,

tropical wetlands. Land Economics,70, 155–73.

Barbier, E. B. (1997) Introduction to the environmental

Kuznets curve special issue. Environment and Develop-

ment Economics,2(4), 369–82.

Barbier, E. B. (2000) Valuing the environment as input:

review of applications to mangrove–fishery linkages.

Ecological Economics,35,47–61.

Barbier, E. B. (2007) Valuing ecosystem services as pro-

ductive inputs. Economic Policy,22(49), 177–229.

Barbier, E. B. and Aylward, B. A. (1996) Capturing the phar-

maceutical value of biodiversity in a developing country.

Environmental and Resource Economics,8(2), 157–91.

Barbier, E. B. and Schulz, C. (1997) Wildlife, biodiversity

and trade. Environment and Development Economics,2,

145–72.

Barbier, E. B. and Swanson, T. (1990) Ivory: the case

against the ban. New Scientist,1743,52–4.

Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C., and Folke, C. (1994) Paradise

Lost? The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity. Earthscan,

London.

Bardgett, R. D. and Shine, A. (1999) Linkages between

plant litter diversity, soil microbial biomass and eco-

system function in temperate grasslands. Soil Biology and

Biochemistry,31, 317–21.

Bardgett, R. D., Freeman, C., and Ostle, N. J. (2008)

Microbial contributions to climate change through car-

bon cycle feedbacks. The ISME Journal,2(8), 805–14.

Bardgett, R. D., Smith, R. S., Shiel, R. S., et al. (2006) Par-

asitic plants indirectly regulate below-ground properties

in grassland ecosystems. Nature,439, 969–72.

Bärlocher, F. and Corkum, M. (2003) Nutrient enrichment

overwhelms diversity effects in leaf decomposition by

stream fungi. Oikos,101, 247–52.

Bärlocher, F. and Graca, M. A. S. (2002) Exotic riparian

vegetation lowers fungal diversity but not leaf decom-

position in Portuguese streams. Freshwater Biology,47,

1123–35.

Barnett, A. and Beisner, B. E. (2007) Zooplankton biodi-

versity and lake trophic state: explanations invoking

resource abundance and distribution. Ecology,88,

1675–86.

Barnett, A. J., Finlay, K., and Beisner, B. E. (2007) Func-

tional diversity of crustacean zooplankton communities:

towards a trait-based classification. Freshwater Biology,

52, 796–813.

Barrett, C. B. and Lybbert, T. J. (2000) Is bioprospecting a

viable strategy for conserving tropical ecosystems? Eco-

logical Economics,34, 293–300.

Barrett, S. (1994) The biodiversity supergame. Environ-

mental and Resource Economics,4(1), 111–22.

Barrett, S. (2000) Trade and the environment: local versus

multilateral reforms. Environment and Development Eco-

nomics,5(4), 349–60.

Barrett, S. (2003) Environment and Statecraft. Oxford Uni-

versity Press, Oxford.

Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Meliàn, C. J., and Olesen, J. M.

(2003) The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic

networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science

USA,100, 9383–7.

Battese, G. and Coelli, T. (1995) A model for technical

inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production

function for panel data. Empirical Economics,20, 325–32.

Baumgärtner, S. (2006) Natural Science Constraints in

Environmental and Resource Economics. University of

Heidelberg Publications Online, Heidelberg (http://

www. ub. uni-heidelberg. de/archiv/6593).

Baumgärtner, S. (2007) The insurance value of biodiversity

in the provision of ecosystem services. Natural Resource

Modeling,20,87–127.

Baumgärtner, S. and Quaas, M. F. (2006) The private and

public insurance value of conservative biodiversity

management. Manuscript (available at http://ssrn.

com/abstract¼892101).

Baumgärtner, S. and Quaas, M. F. (2008), Agro-biodiver-

sity as natural insurance and the development of

financial insurance markets. In A. Kontoleon, U. Pascual

and M. Smale (eds.), Agrobiodiversity and Economic

Development, Routledge.

Baumgärtner, S., Becker, C., Manstetten, R., and Faber, M.

(2006) Relative and absolute scarcity of nature: assessing

the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity

conservation. Ecological Economics,59, 487–98.

REFERENCES 301

Baur, B., Cremene, C., Groza, G., et al. (2006) Effects of

abandonment of subalpine hay meadows on plant and

invertebrate diversity in Transylvania, Romania. Bio-

logical Conservation,132, 261–73.

Bawa, K. S. (1990) Plant–pollinator interactions in tropical

rain forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,21,

299–422.

Bawa, K., Joseph, G., and Setty, S. (2007) Poverty, biodi-

versity, and institutions in forest–agriculture ecotones in

the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalaya ranges of

India. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment,121,

287–95.

Bean, J. M. (1991) Looking back over the first fifteen years.

In K. A. Kohm (ed. ) Balancing on the Brink of Extinction:

Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future,

pp. 37–42. Island Press. Washington, DC.

Beatty, C. D., Beirinckx, K., and Sherratt, T. N. (2004) The

evolution of Mullerian mimicry in multispecies com-

munities. Nature,431,63–7.

Beckage, B. and Gross, L. J. (2006) Overyielding and spe-

cies diversity: what should we expect? New Phytologist,

172, 140–8.

Begon, M. (2008) Effects of host diversity on disease

dynamics. In R. S. Ostfeld, F. Keesing, and V. T. Eviner

(eds. ) Infectious Disease Ecology: Effects of Ecosystems on

Disease and of Disease on Ecosystems, pp. 12–29. Princeton

University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Begon, M., Townsend, C. A., and Harper, J. L. (2006)

Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems, 4th edn), Wiley-

Blackwell, Oxford.

Beissinger, S. R. and Perrine, J. D. (2001) Extinction,

recovery, and the Endangered Species Act. In J. Shogren

and J. Tschirhart (eds. ) Protecting Endangered Species in

the United States, pp. 51–71. Cambridge University Press,

New York.

Belgrano, A., Scharler, U. M., Dunne, J., and Ulanowicz, R. E.

(2005) Aquatic Food Webs: an Ecosystem Approach. Oxford

University Press, New York.

Bell, G. (1990) The ecology and genetics of fitness in

Chlamydomonas, II. The properties of mixtures of

strains. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci-

ences,240, 323–50.

Bell, G. (1991) The ecology and genetics of fitness in

Chlamydomonas, IV. The properties of mixtures of

genotypes of the same species. Evolution,45, 1036–46.

Bell, T., Newman, J. A., Lilley, A. K., and van der Gast, C.

(2005a) Bacteria and island biogeography. Science,309,

1997–8.

Bell, T., Newman, J. A., Silverman, B. W., Turner, S. L., and

Lilley, A. K. (2005b) The contribution of species richness

and composition to bacterial services. Nature,436,

1157–60.

Bellwood, D. R., Hoey, A. S., and Choat, J. H. (2003)

Limited functional redundancy in high diversity sys-

tems: resilience and ecosystem function on coral reefs.

Ecology Letters,6, 281–5.

Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., and Nystrom, M.

(2004) Confronting the coral reefcrisis. Nature,429,827–33.

Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., and Hoey, A. S. (2006)

Sleeping functional group drives coral-reef recovery.

Current Biology,16, 2434–9.

Benedetti-Cecchi, L. (2005) Unanticipated impacts of spa-

tial variance of biodiversity on plant productivity.

Ecology Letters,8, 791–9.

Benton, T. G., Solan, M., Travis, J. M. J. et al. (2007)

Microcosm experiments can inform global ecological

problems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,22, 516–21.

Berg, M. P., Stoffer, M., and van den Heuvel, H. H. (2004)

Feeding guilds in collembola based on digestive enzymes.

Pedobiologia,48, 589–601.

Berish, C. W. and Ewel, J. J. (1988) Root development in

simple and complex tropical successional ecosystems.

Plant and Soil,106,73–84.

Berkes, F., Hughes, T. P., Steneck, R. S., Wilson, J. A.,

Bellwood, D. R., Crona, B., Folke, C., Gunderson, L. H.,

Leslie, H. M., Norberg, J., Nyström, M, Olsson, P.,

Österblom, H., Scheffer, M., and Worm, B. (2005)

Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources.

Science,311, 1557–8.

Berlow, E. L., Navarrete, S. A., Briggs, C. J., Power, M. E.

and Menge, B. A. (1999) Quantifying variation in the

strengths of species interactions. Ecology,80, 2206–24.

Berlow, E. L., Neutel, A. M., Cohen, J. E., de Ruiter, P. C.,

Ebenman, B., Emmerson, M., Fox, J. W., Jansen, V. A. A.,

Jones, J. I., Kokkoris, G. D., Logofet, D. O., McKane, A. J.,

Montoya, J. M., and Petchey, O. (2004) Interaction

strengths in food webs: issues and opportunities. Journal

of Animal Ecology,73,585–98.

Bernhardt, E. S., Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., et al. (2005)

Ecology –synthesizing US riverrestoration efforts. Science,

308,636–7.

Bernhardt, E. S., Sudduth, E. B., Palmer, M. A., et al. (2007)

Restoring rivers one reach at a time: Results from a

survey of U. S. River restoration practitioners. Restora-

tion Ecology,15, 482–93.

Betts, R. A., Malhi, Y., and Roberts, J. T. (2008) Review. The

future of the Amazon: new perspectives from climate,

ecosystem and social sciences. Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,363, 1729–35.

Bezemer, T. M., De Deyn, G. B., Bossinga, T. M.,

van Dam , N. M., Harvey, J. A., and Van der Putten, W. H.

(2005) Soil community composition drives aboveground

plant–herbivore–parasitoid interactions. Ecology Letters,8,

652–61.

302 REFERENCES

Bezemer, T. M., Harvey, J. A., Kowalchuk, G. A., Korper-

shoek, H., and van der Putten, W. H. (2006). Interplay

between Senecio jacobaea and plant, soil, and aboveground

insect community composition. Ecology,87, 2002–13.

Bhagwati, J. (2000) On thinking clearly about the linkage

between trade and the environment. Environment and

Development Economics,5, 483–529.

Bianchi, F., Booij, C. J. H., and Tscharntke, T. (2006) Sus-

tainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a

review on landscape composition, biodiversity and

natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:

Biological Sciences,273, 1715–27.

Biesmeijer, J. C., Roberts, S. P. M., Reemer, M., et al. (2006)

Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants

in Britain and the Netherlands. Science,313,351–4.

Biles, C. L., Solan, M., Isaksson, I., et al. (2003) Flow

modiﬁes the effect of biodiversity on ecosystem func-

tioning: an in situ study of estuarine sediments. Journal of

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,285, 165–77.

Birol, E., Kontoleon, A., and Smale, M. (2005) Farmer

demand for agricultural biodiversity in Hungary’s

transition economy: A choice experiment approach. In

Smale, M. (ed. ) Valuing Crop Genetic Biodiversity on

Farms during Economic Change, pp. 32–47. CAB Interna-

tional, Wallingford, UK.

Bishop, J. A. and Armbruster, W. S. (1999) Thermo-

regulatory abilities of Alaskan bees: effects of size,

phylogeny and ecology. Functional Ecology,13, 711–24.

Bjelke, U. and Herrmann, J. (2005) Processing of two

detritus types by lake-dwelling shredders: species-specific

impacts and effects of species richness. Journal of Animal

Ecology,74,92–8.

Björklund, J., Limburg, K. E., and Rydberg, T. (1999) Impact

of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural

landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example

from Sweden. Ecological Economics,29,269–91.

Blackburn, T. M., Cassey, P., Duncan, R. P., Evans, K. L.,

and Gaston, K. J. (2004) Avian extinction and mammalian

introductions on oceanic islands. Science,305,1955–8.

Blackburn, T. M., Petchey, O.L., Cassey, P., and Gaston, K. J.

(2005) Functional diversity of mammalian predators and

extinction in island birds. Ecology,86,2916–23.

Blanford,S.,Thomas,M.B.,Pugh,C.,andPell,J.K.

(2003) Temperature checks the Red Queen? Resistance

and virulence in a fluctuating environment. Ecology

Letters,6,2–5.

Blondel, J. (2003) Guilds or functional groups: does it

matter? Oikos,100, 223–31.

Blüthgen, N., Menzel, F., Hovestadt, T., Fiala, B., and

Blüthgen, N. (2007) Specialization, constraints, and con-

flicting interests in mutualistic networks. Current Biology,

17,1–6.

Bodmer, R. E., Eisenberg, J. F., and Redford, K. H. (1997)

Hunting and the likelihood of extinction of Amazonian

mammals. Conservation Biology,11, 460–6.

Bohart, G. E. (1947) Wild bees in relation to alfalfa polli-

nation. Farm and Home Science,8,13–14.

Bolker, B. M., Pacala, S. W., Bazzaz, F. A., Canham, C. D.,

and Levin, S. A. (1995) Species-diversity and ecosystem

response to carbon-dioxide fertilization –conclusions

from a temperate forest model. Global Change Biology,1,

373–81.

Bolund, P. and Hunhammar, S. (1999) Ecosystem services

in urban areas. Ecological Economics,29, 293–301.

Bond, E. M. and Chase, J. M. (2002) Biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning at local and regional spatial

scales. Ecology Letters,5, 467–70.

Bond, W. J. and Midgley, G. F. (2000) A proposed CO

controlled mechanism of woody plant invasion in

grasslands and savannas. Global Change Biology,6, 865–9.

Bonkowski, M. and Roy, J. (2005) Soil microbial diversity

and soil functioning affect competition among grasses in

experimental microcosms. Oecologia,143, 232–40.

Bonkowski, M., Geoghegan, I. E., Birch, A. N. E., and

Griffiths, B. S. (2001) Effects of soil decomposer inver-

tebrates (protozoa and earthworms) on an above-

ground phytophagous insect (cereal aphid) mediated

through changes in the host plant. Oikos,95, 441.

Bonnie, R., Carey, M., and Petsonk, A. (2002) Protecting

terrestrial ecosystems and the climate through a global

carbon market. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London Series A: Mathematical Physical and

Engineering Sciences,360, 1853–73.

Bonsall, M. B. and Hassell, M. P. (2007) Predator–prey

interactions. In R. M. May and A. McLean (eds. ) Theo-

retical Ecology: Principles and Applications, 3rd edn,

pp. 46–61. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Booth, R. E. and Grime, J. P. (2003) Effects of genetic

impoverishment on plant community diversity. Journal

of Ecology,91, 721–30.

Borer, E. T., Seabloom, E. W., Shurin, J. B., Anderson, K. E.,

Blanchette, C. A., Broitman, B., Cooper, S. D., and

Halpern, B. S. (2005) What determines the strength of a

trophic cascade? Ecology,86, 528–37.

Borrvall, C. and Ebenman, B. (2006) Early onset of sec-

ondary extinctions in ecological communities follow-

ing the loss of top predators. Ecology Letters,9,435–42.

Borrvall, C., Ebenman, B., and Jonsson, T. (2000) Biodi-

versity lessens the risk of cascading extinction in model

food webs. Ecology Letters,3, 131–6.

Bos, M. M., Veddeler, D., Bogdanski, A. K., et al. (2007)

Caveats to quantifying ecosystem services: fruit abortion

blurs beneﬁts from crop pollination. Ecological Applica-

tions,17, 1841–9.

REFERENCES 303

Botta-Dukat, Z. (2005) Rao’s quadratic entropy as a mea-

sure of functional diversity based on multiple traits.

Journal of Vegetation Science,16, 533–40.

Boughman, J. W. (2001) Divergent sexual selection

enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature,

411, 944–8.

Boyd, J. and Simpson, R. D. (1999) Economics and biodi-

versity conservation options: an argument for continued

experimentation and measured expectations. The Science

of the Total Environment,240,91–105.

Boyer, A. G. (2008) Extinction patterns in the avifauna of

the Hawaiian islands. Diversity and Distributions,14,

509–17.

Bracken, M. E. S. and Stachowitz, J. J. (2006) Seaweed

diversity enhances nitrogen uptake via complementary

use of nitrate and ammonium. Ecology,87, 2397–404.

Bracken, M. E., Friberg, S. E., Gonzales-Dorantes, C. A.,

and Williams, S. L. (2008) Functional consequences of

realistic biodiversity changes in a marine ecosystem.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,

105, 924–8.

Bradford, M. A., Tordoff, G. M., Eggers, T., Jones, T. H.,

and Newington, J. E. (2002) Microbiota, fauna, and mesh

size interactions in litter decomposition. Oikos,99,

317–23.

Bradley, B. A., Houghton, R. A., Mustard, J. F. and Ham-

burg, S. P. (2006) Invasive grass reduces aboveground

carbon stocks in shrublands of the western US. Global

Change Biology,12, 1815–22.

Bradshaw, A. D. (1987) Restoration: an acid test for ecol-

ogy. In W. R. Jordan, M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber (eds. )

Restoration Ecology. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Bradshaw, A. D. (1997) The importance of soil ecology

in restoration science. In K. M. Urbanska, N. R. Webb,

and P. J. Edwards (eds. ) Restoration Ecology and Sus-

tainable Development.CambridgeUniversityPress,

New York.

Bradshaw, A. D. (2000) The use of natural processes in

reclamation –advantages and difficulties. Landscape and

Urban Planning,51,89–100.

Bradshaw, A. D. and Chadwick, M. J. (1980) The Restora-

tion of Land: the Ecology and Reclamation of Derelict Land

and Degraded Land. Blackwell Scientiﬁc Publications,

Oxford.

Brander, J. A. and Taylor, M. S. (1997) International trade

and open-access renewable resources: the small open

economy case. Canadian Journal of Economics,30, 526–52.

Brander, J. A. and Taylor, M. S. (1998) Open access

renewable resources: trade and trade policy in a two-

country model. Journal of International Economics,44,

181–209.

Brandle, J. R., Johnson, B. B., and Akeson, T. (1992) Field

windbreaks: are they economical? Journal of Production

Agriculture,5, 393–8.

Brandle, M., Ohlschlager, S., and Brandl, R. (2002) Range

sizes in butterflies: correlation across scales. Evolutionary

Ecology Research,4, 993–1004.

Brashares, J. S. (2005) Ecological, behavioral, and life-history

correlates of mammal extinctions in West Africa. Conser-

vation Biology,17,733–43.

Brashares, J. S., Arcese, P., Sam, M. K., Coppolillo, P. B.,

Sinclair, A. R. E., and Balmford, A. (2004) Bushmeat

hunting, wildlife declines, and fish supply in West

Africa. Science,306, 1180–3.

Bret-Harte, M. S., Garcia, E. A., Sacre, V. M., et al. (2004)

Plant and soil responses to neighbour removal and fer-

tilization in Alaskan tussock tundra. Journal of Ecology,

92, 635–47.

Briggs, C. J. and Borer, E. T. (2005) Why short-term

experiments may not allow long-term predictions

about intraguild predation. Ecological Applications,15,

1111–17.

Briske, D. D., Fuhlendorf, S. D., and Smeins, F. E. (2006) A

unified framework for assessment and application of

ecological thresholds. Rangeland Ecology and Manage-

ment,59, 225–36.

Brisson, D., Dykhuizen, D. E. and Ostfeld, R. S. (2008)

Conspicuous impacts of inconspicuous hosts on the

human Lyme disease epidemic. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of London B: Biological Sciences,275, 227–35.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food (1998)

Planning for profit: alfalfa seed, Peace River, Spring 1998,pub-

lished online at http://www. agf. gov. bc. ca/busmgmt/

budgets/budget_pdf/grain_oilseed/alfalf98. pdf

Brock, W. A. and Xepapadeas, A. (2002) Biodiversity

management under uncertainty: species selection and

harvesting rules. In B. Kristrom, P. Dasgupta, and

K. Lofgren (eds. ) Economic Theory for the Environment:

Essays in Honour of Karl-Goran Maler, pp. 62–97. Edward

Elgar, Cheltenham.

Brock, W. A. and Xepapadeas, A. (2004) Optimal man-

agement when species compete for limited resources.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,44,

189–220.

Brockhurst, M. A., Buckling, A., and Gardner, A. (2007)

Cooperation peaks at intermediate disturbance. Current

Biology,17, 761–5.

Brockhurst, M. A., Hochberg, M. E., Bell, T., and Buckling, A.

(2006) Character displacement promotes cooperation in

bacterial biofilms. Current Biology,16, 2030–4.

Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S., and Ng, P. K. L. (2003) Cata-

strophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore.

Nature,424, 420–3.

304 REFERENCES

Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S., and Bradshaw, C. J. A. (2008)

Synergies among extinction drivers under global

change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,23, 453–60.

Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L., and Oyugi, J. O. (1999) Time lag

between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical

forest fragments. Conservation Biology,13, 1140–50.

Brose, U., Jonsson, T., Berlow, E. L., Warren, P., Banasek-

Richter, C., Bersier, L. F., Blanchard, J. L., Brey, T.,

Carpenter, S. R., Blandenier, M. F. C., Cushing, L.,

Dawah, H. A., Dell, T., Edwards, F., Harper-Smith, S.,

Jacob, U., Ledger, M. E., Martinez, N. D., Memmott, J.,

Mintenbeck, K., Pinnegar, J. K., Rall, B. C., Rayner, T. S.,

Reuman, D. C., Ruess, L., Ulrich, W., Williams, R. J.,

Woodward, G., and Cohen, J. E. (2006) Consumer–

resource body-size relationships in natural food webs.

Ecology,87, 2411–17.

Brown, A. W. A. (1977) Yellow fever, dengue and dengue

haemorrhagic fever. In G. M. Howe (ed.) A World

Geography of Human Diseases, pp. 271–317. Academic

Press, London.

Brown, B. J. and Mitchell, R. J. (2001) Competition for

pollination: effects of pollen of an invasive plant on seed

set of a native congener. Oecologia,129,43–9.

Brown, G. M. and Hammack, J. (1974) Waterfowl and

Wetlands, Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. Johns Hopkins

Press, Baltimore, MD.

Brown, J. H. (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Brown, J. H. and Kodricbrown, A. (1977) Turnover rates in

insular biogeography –effect of immigration on extinc-

tion. Ecology,58, 445–9.

Brown, R. L. and Peet, R. K. (2003) Diversity and invasi-

bility of southern Appalachian plant communities.

Ecology,84,32–9.

Brown, J. H., Ernest, S. K. M., Parody, J. M., andHaskell, J. P.

(2001) Regulation of diversity: maintenance of species

richness in changing environments. Oecologia,126,321–2.

Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M., and

West, G. B. (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology.

Ecology,85, 1771–89.

Bruno, J. F. and Cardinale, B. J. (2008) Cascading effects of

predator richness. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environ-

ment,6(10), 539–46.

Bruno, J. F. and O’Connor, M. I. (2005) Cascading effects of

predator diversity and omnivory in a marine food web.

Ecology Letters,8, 1048–56.

Bruno, J. F., Boyer, K. E., Duffy, J. E., et al. (2005a) Effects of

macroalgal species identity and richness on primary

production in benthic marine communities. Ecology Let-

ters,8, 1165–74.

Bruno, J. F., Fridley, J. D., Bromberg, K. D., and Bertness,

M. D. (2005b) Insights into biotic interactions from

studies of species invasions. In D. F. Sax, J. J. Stachowicz,

and S. D. Gaines (eds. ) Species Invasions: Insights into

Ecology, Evolution, and Biogeography, pp. 13–40. Sinauer

Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

Bruno, J. F., Lee, S. C., Kertesz, J. S., et al. (2006) Parti-

tioning the effects of algal species identity and richness

on benthic marine primary production. Oikos,115,

170–8.

Brunsdon, C. and Willis, K. G. (2002) Meta-analysis: a

Bayesian perspective. In R. J. G. M. Florax, P. Nijkamp,

and K. G. Willis (eds. ) Comparative Environmental Eco-

nomic Assessment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Brush, S. B. (2004) Farmers’Bounty: Locating Crop Diversity

in the Contemporary World. Yale University Press, New

Haven, CT.

Buchmann, N. and Schulze, E. (1999) Net CO

and H

fluxes of terrestrial ecosystems. Global Biochemical Cycles,

13, 751–60.

Buckling, A., Kassen, R., Bell, G., and Rainey, P. B. (2000)

Disturbance and diversity in experimental microcosms.

Nature,408, 961–4.

Bulling, M. T., White, P. C. L., Raffaelli, D., et al. (2006)

Using model systems to address the biodiversity–

ecosystem functioning process. Marine Ecology Progress

Series,311, 295–309.

Bullock, J. M., Pywell, R. F., Burke, M. J. W., et al. (2001)

Restoration of biodiversity enhances agricultural pro-

duction. Ecology Letters,4, 185–9.

Bullock, J. M., Pywell, R. F., Coulson, S. J., Nolan, A. M.,

and Caswell, H. (2002) Plant dispersal and colonisation

processes at local and landscape scales. In J. M. Bullock,

R. E. Kenward, and R. Hails (eds. ) Dispersal Ecology.

Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Bullock, J. M., Pywell, R. F., and Walker, K. J. (2007)

Long-term enhancement of agricultural production by

restoration of biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology,

44,6–12.

Bunker, D. E. (2004) The Application of Competition Theory

to Invaders and Biological Control: a Test Case with

Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Broad-Leaved

Cattail (Typha latifolia), and a Leaf-Feeding Beetle

(Galerucella calmariensis). University of Pittsburgh,

Pittsburgh.

Bunker, D. E., DeClerck, F., Bradford, J. C., et al. (2005)

Species loss and above-ground carbon storage in a tro-

pical forest. Science,310, 1029–31.

Burke, M. J. W. and Grime, J. P. (1996) An experimental

study of plant community invasibility. Ecology,77,

776–90.

Burns, K. C. (2004) Scale and macroecological patterns in

seed dispersal mutualisms. Global Ecology and Biogeog-

raphy,13, 289–93.

REFERENCES 305

Butler, J. L., Parker, M. S., and Murphy, J. T. (2006) Efficacy

of flea beetle control of leafy spurge in Montana and

South Dakota. Rangeland Ecology & Management,59,

453–61.

Butler, S. J., Vickery, J. A., and Norris, K. (2007) Farmland

biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science,315,

381–4.

Byrnes, J., Stachowicz, J. J., Hultgren, K. M., Hughes, A. R.,

Olyarnik, S. V., and Thornber, C. S. (2006) Predator

diversity strengthens trophic cascades in kelp forests by

modifying herbivore behaviour. Ecology Letters,9,61–71.

Cadotte, M. W. and Fukami, T. (2005) Dispersal, spatial

scale, and species diversity in a hierarchically structured

experimental landscape. Ecology Letters,8, 548–57.

Caldeira, M. C., Hector, A., Loreau, M., and Pereira, J. S.

(2005) Species richness, temporal variability and resis-

tance of biomass production in a Mediterranean grass-

land. Oikos,110, 115–23.

Callaway, J. C., Sullivan, G., and Zedler, J. B. (2003) Spe-

cies-rich plantings increase biomass and nitrogen accu-

mulation in a wetland restoration experiment. Ecological

Applications,13, 1626–39.

Callaway, R. M. and Ridenour, W. M. (2004) Novel

weapons: invasive success and the evolution of

increased competitive ability. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment,2, 436–43.

Callaway, R. M., Thelen, G. C., Rodriguez, A., and Holben,

W. E. (2004) Soil biota and exotic plant invasion. Nature,

427, 731–3.

Callaway, R. M., Cipollini, D., Barto, K., Thelen, G. C.,

Hallett, S. G., Prati, D., Stinson, K., and Klironomos, J.

(2008) Novel weapons: invasive plant suppresses fungal

mutualists in America but not in its native Europe.

Ecology,89, 1043–55.

Callenbach, E. (2000) Bring Back the Buffalo! A Sustainable

Future for America’s Great Plains. IslandPress, Berkeley, CA.

Cameron, C. A. and Trivedi, P. (1998) Regression Analysis of

Count Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cameron, T. (2002) 2002: the year of the diversity–

ecosystem function debate. Trends in Ecology and Evolu-

tion,17, 495–6.

Camill, P., Mckone, M. J., Sturges, S. T., et al. (2004)

Community- and ecosystem-level changes in a species-

rich tallgrass prairie restoration. Ecological Applications,

14, 1680–94.

Canadell, J. G. and Raupach, M. R. (2008) Managing for-

ests for climate change mitigation. Science,320, 1456–7.

Cardillo, M., Mace, G. M., Jones, K. E., et al. (2005) Multiple

causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species.

Science,309, 1239–41.

Cardillo, M., Purvis, A., Sechrest, W., Gittleman, J. L.,

Bielby, J., and Mace, G. M. (2004) Human population

density and extinction risk in the world’s carnivores.

PLoS Biology,2, 909–14.

Cardinale, B. J. and Palmer, M. A. (2002) Disturbance

moderates biodiversity–ecosystem function relation-

ships: experimental evidence from caddisflies in stream

mesocosms. Ecology,83, 1915–27.

Cardinale, B. J., Nelson, K., Palmer, M. A. (2000) Linking

species diversity to the functioning of ecosystems: on the

importance of environmental context. Oikos,91,175–83.

Cardinale, B. J., Palmer, M. A. and Collins, S. L. (2002)

Species diversity enhances ecosystem functioning

through interspecific facilitation. Nature,415, 426–9.

Cardinale, B. J., Harvey, C. T., Gross, K., and Ives, A. R.

(2003) Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of

a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and

crop yield in an agroecosystem. Ecology Letters,6,

857–65.

Cardinale, B. J., Ives, A. R., and Inchausti, P. (2004) Effects

of species diversity on the primary productivity of eco-

systems: extending our spatial and temporal scale of

inference. Oikos,104, 437–450.

Cardinale, B. J., Palmer, M. A., Ives, A. R., et al. (2005)

Diversity–productivity relationships in streams vary as

a function of the natural disturbance regime. Ecology,86,

716–26.

Cardinale, B. J., Srivastava, D. S., Duffy, J. E., et al. (2006a)

Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic

groups and ecosystems. Nature,443, 989–92.

Cardinale, B. J., Weis, J. J., Forbes, A. E., Tilmon, K. J., and

Ives, A. R. (2006b). Biodiversity as both a cause and

consequence of resource availability: a study of recip-

rocal causality in a predator–prey system. Journal of

Animal Ecology,75, 497–505.

Cardinale, B. J., Wright, J. P., Cadotte, M. W., et al. (2007)

Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production

increase through time because of species complemen-

tarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

USA,104, 18123–8.

Cardinale, B. J., Srivastava, D. S., Duffy, J. E., et al., (2009)

Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of ecosystem: a

summary of 164 experimental manipulations of species

richness. Ecology,90, 854.

Carlander, K. D. (1952) Farm Fish Pond Research in Iowa.

The Journal of Wildlife Management,16, 258–61.

Carnevale, N. J. and Montagnini, F. (2002) Facilitating

regeneration of secondary forests with the use of mixed

and pure plantations of indigenous tree species. Forest

Ecology and Management,163, 217–27.

Carney, K. M., Matson, P. A., and Bohannan, B. (2004)

Diversity and composition of tropical soil nitrifiers

across a plant diversity gradient and among land-use

types. Ecology Letters,7, 684–94.

306 REFERENCES

Carpenter, S. R. (1996) Microcosm experiments have lim-

ited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology.

Ecology,77, 677–80.

Carpenter, S. R., Kitchell, J. F., Hodgson, J. R., Cochran, P.

A., Elser, J. J., Elser, M. M., Lodge, D. M., Kretchmer, D.,

He, X., and Vonende, C. N. (1987) Regulation of lake

primary productivity by food web structure. Ecology,68,

1863–76.

Carson, R. (2008) Contingent Valuation: a Comprehensive

Bibliography and History. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Caruso, C. M., Maherali, H., Mikulyuk, A., Carlson, K.,

and Jackson, R. B. (2005) Genetic variance and covari-

ance for physiological traits in Lobelia: are there con-

straints on adaptive evolution? Evolution,59, 826–37.

Caspersen, J. P. and Pacala, S. W. (2001) Successional

diversity and forest ecosystem function. Ecological

Research,16, 895–903.

Catovsky, S., Bradford, M. A., and Hector, A. (2002) Bio-

diversity and ecosystem productivity: implications for

carbon storage. Oikos,97, 443–8.

Cavender-Bares, J., Ackerly, D. D., Baum, D. A., and

Bazzaz, F. A. (2004) Phylogenetic overdispersion in

Floridian oak communities. American Naturalist,163,

823–43.

Cavigelli, M. A., and Robertson, G. P. (2000) The func-

tional significance of denitrifier community composition

in a terrestrial ecosystem. Ecology,81, 1402–14.

Cecen, S., Gurel, F., and Karaca, A. (2008) Impact of hon-

eybee and bumblebee pollination on alfalfa seed yield.

Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B –Soil and Plant

Science,58,77–81.

Chagnon, M., Gingras, J., and De Oliveira, D. (1993)

Complementary aspects of strawberry pollination by

honey and indigenous bees (Hymenoptera). Journal of

Economic Entomology,86, 416–20.

Chalcraft, D. R. and Resetarits, W. J. (2003) Predator

identity and ecological impacts: functional redundancy

or functional diversity? Ecology,84, 2407–18.

Chapin, F. S. (2003) Effects of plant traits on ecosystem and

regional processes: a conceptual framework for pre-

dicting the consequences of global change. Annals of

Botany,91, 455–63.

Chapin, F. S., Schulze, E., and Mooney H. (1992) Biodi-

versity and ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution,7, 107–8.

Chapin, F. S., Bret-Harte, M.S., Hobbie, S. E., and Hailan, Z.

(1996) Plant functional types as predictors of transient

responses of Arctic vegetation to global change. Journal of

Vegetation Science,7,347–58.

Chapin,F.S.,Walker,B.H.,Hobbs,R.J.,Hooper,D.U.,

Lawton, J. H., Sala, E. O., and Tilman, D. (1997) Biotic control

over the functioning of ecosystems. Science,277,500–4.

Chapin, F. S., Eugster, W., McFadden, J., Lynch, A., and

Walker, D. (2000a) Summer differences among Arctic

ecosystems in regional climate forcing. Journal of Climate,

13, 2002–10.

Chapin, F. S., McGuire, A., Randerson, J., et al. (2000b).

Arctic and boreal ecosystems of western North America

as components of the climate system. Global Change

Biology,6, 211–23.

Chapin, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, E. T., et al. (2000c)

Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature,405,

234–42.

Chapin, F. S., Sturm, M., Serreze, M. C., et al. (2005) Role of

land-surface changes in Arctic summer warming. Sci-

ence,310, 657–60.

Chapin, F. S., Trainor, S. F., Huntington, O., et al. (2008)

Increasing wildﬁre in Alaska’s boreal forest: pathways

to potential solutions of a wicked problem. Bioscience,58,

531–40.

Chapin, S. I., Oe, S., Burke, I., et al. (1998) Ecosystem con-

sequences of changing biodiversity. BioScience,48,45–52.

Chapman, K., Whittaker, J. B. and Heal, O. W. (1988)

Metabolic and faunal activity in litters of tree mixtures

compared with pure stands. Agriculture Ecosystems and

Environment,24,33–40.

Charnov, E. L. (1997) Trade-off-invariant rules for evolu-

tionarily stable life histories. Nature,387, 393–4.

Charrette, N. A., Cleary, D. F. R., and Mooers, A. Ø. (2006)

Range-restricted, specialist Bornean butterflies are less

likely to recover from ENSO-induced disturbance.

Ecology,87, 2330–7.

Chave, J. (2004) Neutral theory and community ecology.

Ecology Letters,7, 241–53.

Chazdon, R. L. (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring

forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Sci-

ence,320, 1458–60.

Check, E. (2005) Roots of recovery. Nature,438, 910–11.

Chesson, P. (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species

diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,31,

343–66.

Chesson, P., Pacala, S., and Neuhauser, C. (2002)

Environmental niches and ecoystem functioning. In

A. P. Kinzig, S. W. Pacala, and D. Tilman (eds.) The

Functional Consequences of Biodiversity,pp.213–45.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Chiari, W. C., de Alencar Arnaut de Toledo, V., Ruvolo-

Takasusuki, M. C. C., et al. (2005) Pollination of soybean

(Glycine max L. Merril) by honeybees (Apis mellifera L.).

Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology,48,31–6.

Chichilnisky, G. (1994) North–south trade and the global

environment. American Economic Review,84, 851–74.

Chichilnisky, G. and Heal, G. (1998) Economic returns

from the biosphere. Nature,391, 629–30.

REFERENCES 307

Chittka, L. and Schürkens, S. (2001) Successful invasion of

a floral market. Nature,411, 653.

Chomitz, K. E. (1999) Transferable Development Rights and

Forest Protection: an Exploratory Analysis. Paper prepared

for the Workshop on Market-Based Instruments for

Environmental Protection, July 1999. John F. Kennedy

School of Government, Harvard University.

Chong, J. (2005) Protective Values of Mangrove and Coral

Ecosystems: a Review of Methods and Evidence. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland.

Chopra, K. and Adhikar, S. (2004) Environment- development

linkages: a dynamic modeling for a wetland eco-system.

Environment and Development Economics,9(1), 19–45.

Chopra, K. and Kumar, P. (2004) Forest biodiversity and

timber extraction: an analysis of the interaction of mar-

ket and non-market mechanisms. Ecological Economics,

49, 135–48.

Christian, J. M. and Wilson, S. D. (1999) Long-term eco-

system impacts of an introduced grass in the northern

great plains. Ecology,80, 2397–407.

Christianou, M. and Ebenman, B. (2005) Keystone species

and vulnerable species in ecological communities:

strong or weak interactors? Journal of Theoretical Biology,

235,95–103.

Chu, Y., He, W. M., Liu, H. D., Liu, J., Zhu, X. W., and Dong,

M. (2006) Phytomass and plant functional diversity in

early restoration of the degraded, semi-arid grasslands in

northern china. Journal of Arid Environments,67,678–87.

Cianciaruso, M. V., Batalha, M. A., Gaston, K. J., and

Petchey O. L. (2009) Including intraspecific variability

in functional diversity, 90:81–89.

Clark, W. C. and Munn, R. E. (1987) Sustainable devel-

opment of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press,

New York.

Clarke, P. J., Latz, P. K., and Albrecht, D. E. (2005) Long-

term changes in semi-arid vegetation: invasion of an

exotic perennial grass has larger effects than rainfall

variability. Journal of Vegetation Science,16,237–48.

Clay, J. W. (2004) World Agriculture and the Environment: a

Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Cleland, E. E., Smith, M. D., Andelman, S. J., Bowles, C.,

Carney,K.M.,ClaireHorner-Devine,M.,Drake,J.M.,

Emery, S. M., Gramling, J. M., and Vandermast, D. B.

(2004) Invasion in space and time: non-native species

richness and relative abundance respond to interannual

variation in productivity and diversity. Ecology Letters,

7, 947–57.

Cole, M. A., Rayner, A. J., and Bates, J. M. (1997) The

environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis.

Environment and Development Economics,2(4), 401–16.

Coley, P. (1983) Herbivory and defensive characteristics of

tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecological

Monographs,53, 209–33.

Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P., and Chapin, F. S. (1985) Resource

availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science,230,

895–9.

Collen, B., Bykova, E., Ling, S., Milner-Gulland, E. J., and

Purvis, A. (2006) Extinction risk: a comparative analysis

of central Asian vertebrates. Biodiversity and Conserva-

tion,15, 1859–71.

Collins, W. W. and Qualset, C. O. (1999) Biodiversity in

Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Connell, J. H. (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and

tropical reefs. Science,199, 1302–10.

Conte, M. N. (2007) Competitive Search and Preemptive

Exclusion. University of California, Santa Barbara,

working paper.

Cook, D. C., Thomas, M. B., Cunningham, S. A., Anderson,

D. L., and De Barro, P. J. (2007) Predicting the economic

impact of an invasive species on an ecosystem service.

Ecological Applications,17, 1832–40.

Cooper, N., Bielby, J., Thomas, G. H., and Purvis, A. (2008)

Macroecology and extinction risk correlates of frogs.

Global Ecology and Biogeography,17, 211–21.

Cornelissen, J. H. C. (1996) An experimental comparison of

leaf decomposition rates in a wide range of temperate

plant species and types. Journal of Ecology,84, 573–82.

Cornelissen, J., Perez-Harguindeguy, N., Díaz, S., et al.

(1999) Leaf structure and defence control litter decom-

position rate across species and life forms in regional

ﬂoras on two continents. New Phytologist,143, 191–200.

Cornelissen, J. H. C. and Thompson, K. (1997) Functional

leaf attributes predict litter decomposition rate in her-

baceous plants. New Phytologist,135, 109–14.

Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., et al. (2003) A

handbook of protocols for standardised and easy mea-

surement of plant functional traits worldwide. Austra-

lian Journal of Botany,51, 335–80.

Cornwell, W. K., Schwilk, D. W., and Ackerly, D. D. (2006)

A trait-based test for habitat filtering: convex hull

volume. Ecology,87, 1465–71.

Cornwell, W. K., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Amatangelo, K.,

et al. (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant

control on litter decomposition rates within biomes

worldwide. Ecology Letters,11, 1065–71.

Cortez, J., Garnier, E., Perez-Harguindeguy, N.,

Debussche, M., and Gillon, D. (2007) Plant traits, litter

quality and decomposition in a Mediterranean old-field

succession. Plant and Soil,296,19–34.

Costanza, R. and Folke, C. (1997) Valuing ecosystem ser-

vices with efficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals.

308 REFERENCES

In G. C. Daily (ed.) Nature’s services. Island Press,

Washington, DC.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al. (1997) The

value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural

capital. Nature,387, 253–9.

Costello, C. and McAusland, C. (2003) Protectionism, trade

and measures of damage from exotic species introduc-

tion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,85(4),

964–75.

Costello, C. and Ward, M. (2006) Search, bioprospecting

and biodiversity conservation. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management,52, 615–26.

Costello, C., Springborn, M., McAusland, C., and Solow,

A. (2007) Unintended biological invasions: Does risk

vary by trading partner? Journal of Environmental Eco-

nomics and Management,54, 262–76.

Cottingham, K. L., Brown, B. L., and Lennon, J. T. (2001)

Biodiversity may regulate the temporal variability of

ecological systems. Ecology Letters,4,72–85.

Covich, A. P., Austen, M., Bärlocher, F., et al. (2004) The

role of biodiversity in the functioning of freshwater and

marine benthic ecosystems. Bioscience,54, 767–75.

Cox, F. E. G. (2001) Concomitant infections, parasites and

immune responses. Parasitology,122, S23–S38.

Cox-Foster, D. L., Conlan, S., Holmes, E. C., et al. (2007) A

metagenomic survey of microbes in honey bee colony

collapse disorder. Science,318, 283–7.

Craft, C., Reader, J., Sacco, J. N., and Broome, S. W. (1999)

Twenty-five years of ecosystem development of con-

structed Spartina alterniflora (loisel) marshes. Ecological

Applications,9, 1405–19.

Cragg, R. G. and R. D. Bardgett (2001) How changes in soil

faunal diversity and composition within a trophic group

influence decomposition processes. Soil Biology & Bio-

chemistry,33, 2073–81.

Craine, J. M., Tilman, D., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Tjoelker, M.,

and Knops, J. (2002) Functional traits, productivity and

effects on nitrogen cycling of 33 grassland species.

Functional Ecology,16, 563–74.

Cramer, J. M., Mesquita, R. C. G., and Williamson, G. B.

(2007) Forest fragmentation differentially affects seed

dispersal of large and small-seeded tropical trees. Bio-

logical Conservation,137, 415–23.

Crawford, J. W., Harris, J. A., Ritz, K., and Young, I. M.

(2005) Towards an evolutionary ecology of life in soil.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution,20,81–7.

Crawley, M. J. and Harral, J. E. (2001) Scale dependence in

plant biodiversity. Science,291, 864–8.

Crews, T., Kitayama, K., Fownes, J., et al. (1995) Changes in

soil-phosphorus fractions and ecosystem dynamics across

a long chronosequence in Hawaii. Ecology,76,1407–24.

Critchley, C. N. R., Burke, M. J. W., and Stevens, D. P.

(2004) Conservation of lowland semi-natural grasslands

in the UK: a review of botanical monitoring results from

agri-environment schemes. Biological Conservation,115,

263–78.

Crocker, T. D. and Tschirhart, J. (1992) Ecosystems, exter-

nalities, and economics. Environmental and Resource Eco-

nomics,2,551–67.

Cross, M. S. and Harte, J. (2007) Compensatory responses

to loss of warming-sensitive plant species. Ecology,88,

740–8.

Crutsinger, G. M., Collins,M. D., Fordyce, J. A., Gompert, Z.,

Nice, C. C., and Sanders, N. J. (2006) Plant genotypic

diversity predicts community structure and governs an

ecosystem process. Science,313,966–8.

Curtis, T. P. and Sloan, W. T. (2004) Prokaryotic diversity

and its limits: microbial community structure in nature

and implications for microbial ecology. Current Opinion

in Microbiology,7, 221–6.

Daehler, C. C. (1998) Variation in self-fertility and the

reproductive advantage of self-fertility for an invading

plant (Spartina alterniflora). Evolutionary Ecology,12, 553–68.

Dahdouh-Guebas, F. and Koedam, N. (2006) Coastal vege-

tation and the Asian tsunami. Science,311(5757), 37–8.

Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Jayatissa, L. P., Di Nitto, D., Bosire, J. O.,

Lo Seen, D., and Koedam, N. (2005) How effective were

mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami?

Current Biology,15(12), 443–7.

Daily, G. (ed.) (1997) Nature’s Services, Societal Dependence

on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daily, G. and Ellison, K. (2002) The New Economy of Nature.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daily, G. C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P. R., et al. (1997)

Ecosystem services: beneﬁts supplied to human societies

by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology,1(2), 1–18.

Dang, C. K., Chauvet, E., and Gessner, M. O. (2005)

Magnitude and variability of process rates in fungal

diversity–litter decomposition relationships. Ecology

Letters,8, 1129–37.

Danielsen, F., Sørensen, M. K., Olwig, M. F., et al. (2005)

The Asian tsunami: A protective role for coastal vege-

tation. Science,310(5748), 643.

D’Antonio, C. M. and Vitousek, P. M. (1992) Biological

invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire cycle, and

global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,

23,63–87.

D’Antonio, C. M., Hughes, R. F., Mack, M., Hitchcock, D.,

and Vitousek, P. M. (1998) The response of native spe-

cies to removal of invasive exotic grasses in a seasonally

dry Hawaiian woodland. Journal of Vegetation Science,9,

699–712.

REFERENCES 309

D’Antonio, C. M. and Hobbie, S. E. (2005) Plant species

effects on ecosystem processes: insights from invasive

species. In D. F. Sax, J. J. Stachowicz, and S. D. Gaines

(eds.) Species Invasions: Insights into Ecology, Evolution,

and Biogeography, pp. 65–84. Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Publishers, Sunderland, MA.

Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of

Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in

the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.

Dasgupta, P. (2001) Human Well-Being and the Environment.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Davic, R. D. (2003) Linking keystone species and func-

tional groups: a new operational definition of the

keystone species concept –response. Conservation

Ecology,7.

Davies, K. F., Margules, C. R., and Lawrence, J. F. (2000)

Which traits of species predict population declines in

experimental forest fragments? Ecology,81, 1450–61.

Davies, K. F., Margules, C. R., and Lawrence, J. F. (2004) A

synergistic effect puts rare, specialized species at greater

risk of extinction. Ecology,85, 265–71.

Davies, R. G., Orme, C. D. L., Storch, D., Olson, V. A.,

Thomas, G. H., Ross, S. G., Ding, T. S., Rasmussen, P. C.,

Bennett, P. M., Owens, I. P. F., Blackburn, T. M., and

Gaston, K. J. (2007) Topography, energy and the global

distribution of bird species richness. Proceedings of the

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,274, 1189–97.

Davis, M. A. and Thompson, K. (2000) Eight ways to be a

colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed

nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the

Ecological Society of America,81, 226–30 (Abstract)

Davis, M. A., Wrage, K. J., and Reich, P. B. (1998) Com-

petition between tree seedlings and herbaceous vegeta-

tion: support for a theory of resource supply and

demand. Journal of Ecology,86, 652–61.

Davis, M. A., Wrage, K. J., Reich, P. B., Tjoelker, M. G.,

Schaeffer, T., and Muermann, C. (1999) Survival,

growth, and photosynthesis of tree seedlings competing

with herbaceous vegetation along a water–light–

nitrogen gradient. Plant Ecology,145, 341–50.

Deacon, L. J., Pryce-Miller, E. J., Frankland, J. C., Bain-

bridge, B. W., Moore, P. D., and Robinson, C. H. (2006)

Diversity and function of decomposer fungi from a

grassland soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry,38,7–20.

De Angelis, D. L. (1992) Dynamics of Nutrient Cycling and

Food Webs. Chapman & Hall, London.

de Bach, P. (1974) Biological Control by Natural Enemies.

Cambridge University Press, London.

de Bello, F., Leps, J., and Sebastia, M. T. (2006) Variations

in species and functional plant diversity along climatic

and grazing gradients. Ecography,29, 801–10.

de Bello, F., Leps, J., Lavorel, S., and Moretti, M. (2007)

Importance of species abundance for assessment of trait

composition: an example based on pollinator commu-

nities. Community Ecology,8,163–70.

Debras, J. F., Torre, F., Rieux, R., et al. (2006) Discrimina-

tion between agricultural management and the hedge

effect in pear orchards (south-eastern France). Annals of

Applied Biology,149, 347–55.

DeClerck, F. A. J., Barbour, M. G., and Sawyer, J. O.

(2006a) Species richness and stand stability in

conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Ecology,87,

2787–99.

DeClerck, F., Ingram, J. C., and del Rio, C. M. R. (2006b)

The role of ecological theory and practice in poverty

alleviation and environmental conservation. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment,10, 533–40.

Decocq, G., and Hermy, M. (2003) Are there herbaceous

dryads in temperate deciduous forests? Acta Botanica

Gallica,150, 373–82.

De Deyn, G. B. and Van der Putten, W. H. (2005) Linking

aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends in

Ecology & Evolution,20, 625–33.

De Deyn, G. B., Raaijmakers, C. E., van Ruijven, J.,

Berendse, F., and van der Putten, W. H. (2004) Plant

species identity and diversity effects on different trophic

levels of nematodes in the soil food web. Oikos,106,

576–86.

DeFalco, L. A., Fernandez, G. C. J., and Nowak, R. S.

(2007) Variation in the establishment of a non-native

annual grass influences competitive interactions with

Mojave Desert perennials. Biological Invasions,9,

293–307.

Degens, B. P. (1998) Microbial functional diversity can be

influenced by the addition simple organic substrates to

soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry,30, 1981–8.

Delaplane, K. S. and Mayer, D. F. (2000) Crop Pollination by

Bees. CABI Publishing, New York.

De Mazancourt, C., Loreau, M., and Abbadie, L. (1998)

Grazing optimization and nutrient cycling: when do

herbivores enhance plant production? Ecology,79,

2242–52.

De Mesel, I., Derycke, S., Swings, J., Vincx, M., and

Moens, T. (2006) Role of nematodes in decomposition

processes: does within-trophic group diversity matter?

Marine Ecology –Progress Series,321,157–66.

Demott, W. R. (1998) Utilization of a cyanobacterium and a

phosphorus-deficient green alga as complementary

resources by daphnids. Ecology,79, 2463–81.

Dennehy, J. J., Friedenberg, N. A., Yang, Y. W., and

Turner, P. E. (2007) Virus population extinction via

ecological traps. Ecology Letters,10, 230–40.

310 REFERENCES

Denslow, J. (1987) Tropical rain-forest gaps and tree spe-

cies-diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,

18, 431–51.

de Ruiter, P. C., Neutel, A. M., and Moore, J. C. (1995)

Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stabil-

ity in real ecosystems. Science,269, 1257–60.

de Ruiter, P. C., Wolters, V., Moore, J. C., and Winemiller,

K. O. (2005) ECOLOGY: food web ecology: playing

Jenga and beyond. Science,309,68–71.

Descamps-Julien, B. and Gonzalez, A. (2005) Stable coex-

istence in a fluctuating environment: an experimental

demonstration. Ecology,86, 2815–24.

Deurwaerdere, T., Krishna, V., and Pascual, U. (2007) An

evolutionary institutional economics approach to the

economics ofbioprospecting. In A. Kontoleon, U. Pascual,

and T. Swanson (eds.) Biodiversity Economics: Principles,

Methods and Applications, pp. 417–45. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

De Wit, C. T. and Van den Bergh, J. P. (1965) Competition

between herbage plants. Netherlands Journal of Agricul-

tural Science,13, 212–21.

Dhôte, J.-F. (2005) Implication of forest diversity in resis-

tance to strong winds. In M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Körner,

and E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The Functional Significance of

Forest Diversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Di Falco, S. and Chavas, J. P. (2007) On the role of crop

biodiversity in the management of environmental risk.

In A. Kontoleon, U. Pascual, and T. Swanson, eds. Bio-

diversity Economics: Principles, Methods and Applications,

pp. 581–93. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Di Falco, S. and Perrings, C. (2003) Crop genetic diversity,

productivity and stability of agroecosystems: a theore-

tical and empirical investigation. Scottish Journal of

Political Economy,50, 207–16.

Di Falco, S. and Perrings, C. (2005) Crop biodiversity, risk

management and the implications of agricultural assis-

tance. Ecological Economics,55(4), 459–66.

Diamond, J. M. (1972) Biogeographic kinetics: estimation

of relaxation times for avifaunas of Southwest Pacific

Islands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the USA,69, 3199–203.

Díaz, S. and Cabido, M. (1997) Plant functional types and

ecosystem function in relation to global change. Journal

of Vegetation Science,8, 463–74.

Díaz, S. and Cabido, M. (2001) Vive la différence: plant

functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes.

Trends in Ecology and Evoluition,16, 646–55.

Díaz, S. and Cáceres, D. (2000) Ecological approaches to

rural development projects. Cadernos de Saúde Publica,

16,7–14.

Díaz, S., Symstad, A., Chapin, F., Wardle, D., and

Huenneke, L. (2003) Functional diversity revealed by

removal experiments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,18,

140–6.

Díaz, S., Hodgson, J. G., Thompson, K., et al. (2004)

The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from

three continents. Journal of Vegetation Science,15,

295–304.

Díaz, S., Tilman, D., Fargione, J., et al. (2005) Biodiversity

regulation of ecosystem services. In Hassan, R.,

Scholes, R., and Ash, N. (eds.) Ecosystems and Human

Well-Being. Current State and Trends –Findings of the

Condition and Trends Working Group of the Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F., and Tilman, D. (2006)

Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS

Biology,4(8), e277.

Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., McIntyre, S., et al. (2007) Plant trait

responses to grazing –a global synthesis. Global Change

Biology,13, 313–41.

Didham, R. K., Hammond, P. M., Lawton, J. H., Eggleton,

P., and Stork, N. E. (1998a). Beetle species responses to

tropical forest fragmentation. Ecological Monographs,68,

295–323.

Didham, R. K., Lawton, J. H., Hammond, P. M., and

Eggleton, P. (1998b). Trophic structure stability and

extinction dynamics of beetles (Coleoptera). in tropical

forest fragments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,353,437–51.

Dierssen, K. (2006) Indicating botanical diversity –

structural and functional aspects based on case studies

from northern Germany. Ecological Indicators,6,94–103.

Dimitrakopoulos, P. G. and Schmid, B. (2004) Biodiversity

effects increase linearly with biotope space. Ecology Let-

ters,7, 574–83.

Dimitrakopoulos, P. G., Siamantziouras, A. S. D., Galani-

dis, A., Mprezetou, I., and Troumbis, A. Y. (2006) The

interactive effects of fire and diversity on short-term

responses of ecosystem processes in experimental

Mediterranean grasslands. Environmental Management,

37, 826–39.

Dirzo, R. and Raven, P. H. (2003) Global state of biodi-

versity and loss. Annual Review of Environment and

Resources,28, 137–67.

Dizney, L. J., and L. A. Ruedas. In press. Increased species

diversity decreases prevalence of a directly transmitted

zoonosis. Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Doak, D. F., Bigger, D., Harding-Smith, E., Marvier, M. A.,

O’Malley, R. and Thomson, D. (1998) The statistical

inevitability of stability–diversity relationships in com-

munity ecology. American Naturalist,151, 264–76.

Dobson, A. P. (2004) Population dynamics of pathogens

with multiple host species. American Naturalist,164,

S64–S78.

REFERENCES 311

Dobson, A. P. and Foufopoulos, J. (2001) Emerging infec-

tious pathogens in wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London B,356, 1001–12.

Dobson, A., Cattadori, I., Holt, R. D., et al. (2006) Sacred

cows and sympathetic squirrels: the importance of bio-

logical diversity to human health. PLoS Medicine,3,

714–18.

Dobson, A., Lodge, D., Alder, J. et al. (2006) Habitat loss,

trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services.

Ecology,87, 1915–24.

Dodd, M. E., Silvertown, J., McConway, K., Potts, J., and

Crawley, M. (1994) Stability in the plant communities of

the park grass experiment: the relationships between

species richness, soil pH and biomass variability. Philo-

sophical Transactions: Biological Sciences,346, 185–93.

Donald, P. F. (2004) Biodiversity impacts of some agri-

cultural commodity production systems. Conservation

Biology,18,17–37.

Downey, D. L. and Winston, M. L. (2001) Honey bee colony

mortality and productivity with single and dual infesta-

tions of parasitic mite species. Apidologie,32,567–75.

Downing, A. L. (2005) Relative effects of species compo-

sition and richness on ecosystem properties in ponds.

Ecology,86, 701–15.

Downing, A. L. and Liebold, M. A. (2002) Ecosystem

consequences of species richness and composition in

pond food webs. Nature,416, 837–41.

Drenovsky, R. E., Martin, C. E., Falasco, M. R., and James,

J. J. (2008) Variation in resource acquisition and utiliza-

tion traits between native and invasive perennial forbs.

American Journal of Botany,95, 681–7.

Drever, C. R., Peterson, G., Messier, C., Bergeron, Y., and

Flannigan, M. (2006) Can forest management based on

natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience?

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,36, 2285–95.

Duarte, C. M. (2000) Marine biodiversity and ecosystem

services: an elusive link. Journal of Experimental Marine

Biology and Ecology,250(1–2), 117–31.

Duarte, C. M., Marba, N., and Holmer, M. (2007) Rapid

domestication of marine species. Science,316, 382–3.

Duarte, S., Pascoal, C., Cassio, F., and Bärlocher, F. (2006)

Aquatic hyphomycete diversity and identity affect leaf

litter decomposition in microcosms. Oecologia,147,

658–66.

Duffy, E. (2003) Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and eco-

system functioning. Ecology Letters,6, 680–7.

Duffy, J. E. (2008) Why biodiversity is important to func-

tioning of real-world ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and

the Environment (in press).

Duffy, J. E. (2002) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the

consumer connection. Oikos,99, 201–19.

Duffy, J. E., Macdonald, K. S., Rhode, J. M., and Parker, J.

D. (2001) Grazer diversity, functional redundancy, and

productivity in seagrass beds: an experimental test.

Ecology,82, 2417–34.

Duffy, J. E., Richardson, J. P., and France, K. E. (2005)

Ecosystem consequences of diversity depend on food

chain length in estuarine vegetation. Ecology Letters,8,

301–9.

Duffy, J. E., Cardinale, B. J., France, K. E., McIntyre, P. B.,

Thebault, E., and Loreau, M. (2007) The functional role

of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic

complexity. Ecology Letters,10, 522–38.

Dukes, J. S. (2001) Biodiversity and invasibility in grass-

land microcosms. Oecologia,126, 563–8.

Dulvy, N. K., Ellis, J. R., Goodwin, N. B., Grant, A., Reynolds,

J. D., and Jennings, S. (2004) Methods of assessing extinc-

tion risk in marine fishes. Fish and Fisheries,5,255–76.

Dulvy, N. K., Jennings, S., Goodwin, N. B., Grant, A., and

Reynolds, J. D. (2005) Comparison of threat and

exploitation status in North-East Atlantic marine popu-

lations. Journal of Applied Ecology,42, 883–91.

Dumay, O., Tari, P. S., Tomasini, J. A., and Mouillot, D.

(2004) Functional groups of lagoon fish species in Lan-

guedoc Roussillon, southern France. Journal of Fish

Biology,64, 970–83.

Duncan, R. P. and Young, J. R. (2000) Determinants of

plant extinction and rarity 145 years after European

settlement of Auckland, New Zealand. Ecology,81,

3048–61.

Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., and Martinez, N. D. (2002a).

Food-web structure and network theory: the role of

connectance and size. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences of the USA,99, 12917–22.

Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., and Martinez, N. D. (2002b)

Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs:

robustness increases with connectance. Ecology Letters,5,

558–67.

Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., and Martinez, N. D. (2004)

Network structure and robustness of marine food webs.

Marine Ecology–Progress Series,273, 291–302.

Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., Martinez, N. D., Wood, R. A.,

and Erwin, D. H. (2008) Compilation and network

analyses of Cambrian food webs. PLoS Biology,6,

693–708.

Duraiappah, A. K. (2006) Markets for Ecosystem Services.

International Institute for Sustainable Development,

Winnipeg, Canada.

Duraiappah, A. K. and Naeem, S. (2005) Synthesis report

on biodiversity. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press,

Washington, DC.

312 REFERENCES

Dyer, A. R. and Rice, K. J. (1999) Effects of competition on

resource availability and growth of a California bunch-

grass. Ecology,80, 2697–710.

Dyson, K. E., Bulling, M. T., Solan, M., et al. (2007) Inﬂu-

ence of macrofaunal assemblages and environmental

heterogeneity on microphytobenthic production in

experimental systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:

Biological Sciences,274, 2547–54.

Ebeling, A., Klein, A. M., Schumacher, J., Weisser, W. W.,

and Tscharntke, T. (2008) How does plant richness affect

pollinator richness and temporal stability of flower vis-

its? Oikos,117, 1808–15.

Ebenman, B. and Jonsson, T. (2005) Using community

viability analysis to identify fragile systems and key-

stone species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,20, 568–75.

Ebenman, B., Law, R., and Borrvall, C. (2004) Community

viability analysis: the response of ecological communi-

ties to species loss. Ecology,85, 2591–600.

Edwards, E. J., Still, C. J., and Donoghue, M. J. (2007) The

relevance of phylogeny to studies of global change.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution,22, 243–9.

Ehrenfeld, J. G. and Toth, L. A. (1997) Restoration ecology

and the ecosystem perspective. Restoration Ecology,5,

307–17.

Eichner, T. and Pethig, R. (2005) Ecosystem and economy:

an integrated dynamic general equilibrium approach.

Journal of Economics,85, 213–49.

Eichner, T. and Tschirhart, J. (2007) Efficient ecosystem

services and naturalness in an ecological/economic

model. Environmental and Resource Economics,37,

733–55.

Eklöf, A. and Ebenman, B. (2006) Species loss and sec-

ondary extinctions in simple and complex model com-

munities. Journal of Animal Ecology,75, 239–46.

Ellis, A. R., Hubbell, S. P., and Potvin, C. (2000) In situ ﬁeld

measurements of photosynthetic rates of tropical tree

species: a test of the functional group hypothesis.

Canadian Journal of Botany,78, 1336–47.

Ellis, G. M. and Fisher, A. C. (1987) Valuing the environ-

ment as input. Journal of Environmental Management,25,

149–56.

Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystrom, M., et al. (2003) Response

diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment,1, 488–94.

Elser, J. J. and Sterner, R. (2002) Ecological Stoichiometry: The

Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere. Prin-

ceton University Press, Princeton.

Elser, J. J., Elser, M. M., Mackay, N. A., and Carpenter, S. R.

(1988) Zooplankton-mediated transitions between

N-limited and P-limited algal growth. Limnology and

Oceanography,33,1–14.

El Serafy, S. (1989) The proper calculation of income from

depletable natural resources. In Y. J. Ahmad, S. El Serafy

and E. Lutz (eds.) Environmental Accounting for Sustain-

able Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Elton, C. S. (1958) The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and

Plants. Methuen, London.

Emmerson, M. and Huxham, M. (2002) Population and

ecosystem level processes in marine habitats. In

M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti (eds.) Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Functioning. Synthesis and Perspectives,

pp. 139–46. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Emmerson, M. C. and Raffaelli, D. G. (2000) Detecting

the effects of diversity on measures of ecosystem

function: experimental design, null models and empirical

observations. Oikos,91,195–203.

Emmerson, M. C., Solan, M., Emes, C., Paterson, D. M.,

and Raffaelli, D. G. (2001) Consistent patterns and the

idiosyncratic effects of biodiversity in marine ecosys-

tems. Nature,411,73–7.

Engelhardt, K. A. M. (2006) Relating effect and response

traits in submersed aquatic macrophytes. Ecological

Applications,16, 1808–20.

Engelhardt, K. A. M. and Kadlec, J. A. (2001) Species traits,

species richness and the resilience of wetlands after dis-

turbance. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management,39,36–9.

Engelhardt, K. A. M. and Ritchie, M. E. (2001) Effects of

macrophyte species richness on wetland ecosystem

functioning and services. Nature,411, 687–9.

Engelhardt, K. A. M. and Ritchie, M. E. (2002) The effect of

aquatic plant species richness on wetland ecosystem

processes. Ecology,83, 2911–24.

Englund, G. and Hamback, P. A. (2007) Scale dependence

of immigration rates: models, metrics and data. Journal

of Animal Ecology,76,30–5.

Enquist, B. J. and Niklas, K. J. (2001) Invariant scaling

relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature,

410, 655–60.

Enquist, B. J., West, G. B., Charnov, E. L., and Brown, J. H.

(1999) Allometric scaling of production and life-history

variation in vascular plants. Nature,401, 907–11.

Enquist, B. J., Economo, E. P., Huxman, T. E., Allen, A. P.,

Ignace, D. D., and Gillooly, J. F. (2003) Scaling metabo-

lism from organisms to ecosystems. Nature,423, 639–42.

Enquist, B. J., Kerkhoff, A. J., Stark, S. C., Swenson, N. G.,

McCarthy, M. C., and Price, C. A. (2007) A general

integrative model for scaling plant growth, carbon flux,

and functional trait spectra. Nature,449, 218–22.

Epps, K. Y., Comerford, N. B., Reeves, J. B., Cropper, W. P.,

and Araujo, Q. R. (2007) Chemical diversity –

highlighting a species richness and ecosystem function

disconnect. Oikos,116, 1831–40.

REFERENCES 313

Ernst, R., Linsenmair, K. E., and Rodel, M. O. (2006) Diversity

erosion beyond the species level: dramatic loss of functional

diversity after selective logging in two tropical amphibian

communities. Biological Conservation,133,143–55.

Espinosa-García, F. J., Villaseñor, J. L., and Vibrans, H.

(2004) The rich generally get richer, but there are

exceptions: correlations between species richness and

native plant species and alien weeds in Mexico. Diversity

and Distributions,10, 399–407.

Etterson, J. R. and Shaw, R. G. (2001) Constraint to adaptive

evolution in response to global warming. Science,294,

151–4.

Evans, J. and Turnbull, J. (2004) Plantation Forestry in the

Tropics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Eviner, V. T. (2004) Plant traits that influence ecosystem

processes vary independently among species. Ecology,

85, 2215–29.

Eviner, V. T. and Chapin, F. S. (2003) Functional matrix: a

conceptual framework for predicting multiple plant

effects on ecosystem processes. Annual Review in Ecology,

Evolution, and Systematics,34, 455–85.

Eviner, V. T., Chapin, F. S., and Vaughn, C. E. (2006)

Seasonal variations in plant species effects on soil n and

p dynamics. Ecology,87, 974–86.

Ewel, J. (1986) Designing agricultural ecosystems for the

humid tropics. Annual Rewiew of Ecology and Systematics,

17, 245–71.

Ewers, R. M., and Didham, R. K. (2006) Confounding

factors in the detection of species responses to habitat

fragmentation. Biological Reviews,81, 117–42.

Ezenwa, V. O., Godsey, M. S., King, R. J., and Guptill, S. C.

(2006) Avian diversity and West Nile virus: Testing

associations between biodiversity and infectious disease

risk. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

273, 109–17.

Fabos, J. G. (2004) Greenway planning in the United States:

its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban

Planning,68, 321–42.

Fagan, W. F., Meir, E., Prendergast, J., Folarin, A., and

Karieva, P. (2001) Characterizing population vulner-

ability for 758 species. Ecology Letters,4, 132–8.

Fahnestock, J. T. and Detling, J. K. (2002) Bison–prairie

dog–plant interactions in a North American mixed-grass

prairie. Oecologia,132,86–95.

Fahrig, L. (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on bio-

diversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Sys-

tematics,34, 487–515.

Falk, D. A., Palmer, M. A., and Zedler, J. B. (eds.) (2006) Foun-

dations of Restoration Ecology.IslandPress,Washington,DC.

Falkowski, P. G., Fenchel, T., and Delong, E. F. (2008) The

microbial engines that drive Earth’s biogeochemical

cycles. Science,320, 1034–9.

FAO (2003) World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. An FAO

Perspective. Rome.

FAO (1998) Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (Sustainable Development Department).

Soil and Microbial Biodiversity. http://www.fao.org/sd/

EPdirect/EPre0045.htm.

FAOstat data (2006) http://faostat.fao.org/.

Fargione, J. E. and Tilman, D. (2005) Diversity decreases

invasion via both sampling and complementarity

effects. Ecology Letters,8, 604–11.

Fargione, J. Brown, C. S., and Tilman, D. (2003) Commu-

nity assembly and invasion: an experimental test of

neutral versus niche processes. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA,100, 8916–20.

Fargione, J., Tilman, D., Dybzinski, R., et al. (2007) From

selection to complementarity: shifts in the causes of

biodiversity–productivity relationships in a long-term

biodiversity experiment. Proceedings of the Royal Society

B: Biological Sciences,274, 871–6.

Farnsworth, E. J. and Ellison, A. M. (1997) The global

conservation status of mangroves. Ambio,26(6), 328–34.

Farrelly, V., Rainey, F. A., and Stackebrandt, E. (1995)

Effect of genome size and Rrn Gene Copy Number on

PCR amplification of 16s ribosomal-RNA genes from a

mixture of bacterial species. Applied and Environmental

Microbiology,61, 2798–801.

Fearnside, P. M. (2006a). Mitigation of climatic change in

the Amazon. In Laurance, W. F. and Peres, C. A. (eds.)

Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests. University of Chi-

cago Press, Chicago.

Fearnside, P. M. (2006b). Tropical deforestation and global

warming. Science,312, 1137.

Fearnside, P. M. and Barbosa, K. I. (2004) Accelerating

deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: towards answering

open questions. Environmental Conservation,31,7–10.

Fédoroff, E., Ponge, J. F., Dubs, F., Fernandez-Gonzalez, F.,

and Lavelle, P. (2005) Small-scale response of plant

species to land-use intensification. Agriculture Ecosystems

& Environment,105, 283–90.

Feehan, J., Gillmor, D. A., and Culleton, N. (2005) Effects of

an agri-environment scheme on farmland biodiversity in

Ireland. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment,107,

275–86.

Feeley, K. J., Gillespie, T. W., Lebbin, D. J., and Walter, H. S.

(2007) Species characteristics associated with extinction

vulnerability and nestedness rankings of birds in tro-

pical forest fragments. Animal Conservation,10,

493–501.

Feng, Y. L., Auge, H., and Ebeling, S. K. (2007) Invasive

Buddleja davidii allocates more nitrogen to its photosyn-

thetic machinery than ﬁve native woody species. Oeco-

logia,153, 501–10.

314 REFERENCES

Fenner, M. and Thompson, K. (2005) The Ecology of Seeds.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ferrari, J., Muller, C. B., Kraaijeveld, A. R., and

Godfray, H. C. J. (2001) Clonal variation and covari-

ation in aphid resistance to parasitoids and a patho-

gen. Evolution,55,1805–14.

Ferraro, P. J. and Simpson, R. D. (2002) The cost-

effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econom-

ics,78,339–53.

Field, B. C. and Conra, J. M. (1975) Economic issues in

programs of transferable development rights. Land

Economics,4, 331–40.

Field, C. B., Campbell, J. E., and Lobell, D. B. (2008) Bio-

mass energy: the scale of the potential resource. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution,23,65–72.

Fierer, N., Bradford, M. A., and Jackson, R. B. (2007)

Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria.

Ecology,88, 1354–64.

Finke, D. L. and Denno, R. F. (2004) Predator diversity

dampens trophic cascades. Nature,429, 407–10.

Finke, D. L. and Denno, R. F. (2005) Predator diversity and

the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild

predation in dampening trophic cascades. Ecology Let-

ters,8, 1299–306.

Finke, D. L. and Denno, R. F. (2006) Spatial refuge from

intraguild predation: Implications for prey suppression

and trophic cascades. Oecologia,149, 265–75.

Finnoff, D. and Tschirhart, J. (2003a). Protecting an

endangered species while harvesting its prey in a gen-

eral equilibrium ecosystem model. Land Economics,79,

160–80.

Finnoff, D. and Tschirhart, J. (2003b). Harvesting in an

eight species ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Eco-

nomics and Management,45, 589–611.

Finnoff, D., and Tschirhart, J. (2005) Identifying, prevent-

ing and controlling successful invasive plant species

using their physiological traits. Ecological Economics,52,

397–416.

Finnoff, D. and Tschirhart, J. (2006) Using oligopoly theory

to examine individual plant versus community optimi-

zation and evolutionary stable objectives. Natural

Resource Modeling,20,61–86.

Finnoff, D. and Tschirhart, J. (2007) Linking Dynamic

Economic and Ecological General Equilibrium Models.

Working paper, Dept. of Economics, University of

Wyoming.

Finnoff, D., Strong, A., and Tschirhart, J. (2007) Stocking

regulations and the spread of invasive plants. In

J. F. Shogren et al. (eds.) Integrating Economics and Biology

for Bioeconomic Risk Assessment/Management of Invasive

Species in Agriculture. Report to Economic Research

Service, USDA, Washington DC.

Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B., Blomberg, S. P., Montague-

Drake, R., Felton, A., and Stein, J. A. (2007) Functional

richness and relative resilience of bird communities in

regions with different land use intensities. Ecosystems,

10, 964–74.

Fischlin, A., Midgley, G., Price, J., et al. (2007) Ecosystems,

their properties, goods, and services. In IPCC (ed.) Cli-

mate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fisher,D.O.,Blomberg,S.P.,andOwens,I.P.F.(2003)

Extrinsic versus intrinsic factors in the decline and

extinction of Australian marsupials. Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,270,

1801–8.

Fisher, S. G. and Likens, G. E. (1973) Energy flow in Bear

Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative approach to

stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecological Monographs,43,

421–39.

Flint, R. W. and Kalke, R. D. (2005) Reinventing the wheel

in ecology research? Science,307, 1875–6.

Flynn, D. F. B., He, J.-S., Wolf-Bellin, K. S., Schmid, B., and

Bazzaz, F. A. (2008) Hierarchical reliability in experi-

mental plant communities. Journal of Plant Ecology,1,

59–65.

Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., et al. (2005) Global

consequences of land use. Science,309, 570–4.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Hol-

ling, C. S., and Walker, B. (2002) Resilience and sus-

tainable development: building adaptive capacity in a

world of transformations. AMBIO: A Journal of the

Human Environment,31, 437–40.

Folke, C., Holling, C. S., and Perrings, C. (1996) Biological

diversity, ecosystems and the human scale. Ecological

Applications,6, 1018–24.

Fonseca, C. R. and Ganade, G. (2001) Species functional

redundancy, random extinctions and the stability of

ecosystems. Journal of Ecology,89, 118–25.

Fontaine, S., Bardoux, G., Abbadie, L., and Mariotti, A.

(2004) Carbon input to soil may decrease soil carbon

content. Ecology Letters,7, 314–20.

Forsyth, M. (2000) On estimating the option value of pre-

serving a wilderness area. Canadian Journal of Economics,

33, 413–34.

Forup, M. L., Henson, K. S. E., Craze, P. G., and Memmott, J.

(2008) The restoration of ecological interactions: plant–

pollinator networks on ancient and restored heathlands.

Journal of Applied Ecology,45,742–52.

Foufopoulos, J. and Ives, A. R. (1999) Reptile extinction on

land-bridge islands: life-history attributes and vulner-

ability to extinction. American Naturalist,153,1–25.

REFERENCES 315

Foufopoulos, J. and Mayer, G. C. (2007) Turnover of pas-

serine birds on islands in the Aegean Sea (Greece).

Journal of Biogeography,34, 1113–23.

Fox, J. W. (2004a). Effects of algal and herbivore diversity

on the partitioning of—biomass within and among

trophic levels. Ecology,85, 549–59.

Fox, J. W. (2004b). Modelling the joint effects of predator

and prey diversity on total prey biomass. Journal of

Animal Ecology,73,88–96.

Fox, J. W. (2005a). Biodiversity, food web structure, and

the partitioning of biomass within and among trophic

levels. In P. C. de Ruiter, V. Wolters, and J. C. Moore

(eds.) Dynamic Food Webs: Multispecies Assemblages, Eco-

system Development, and Environmental Change,

pp. 283–94. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Fox, J. W. (2005b). Interpreting the ‘selection effect’of

biodiversity on ecosystem function. Ecology Letters,8,

846–56.

Fox, J. W. (2006) Using the Price Equation to partition the

effects of biodiversity loss on ecosystem function. Ecol-

ogy,87, 2687–96.

Fox, J. W. and Harpole, W. S. (2008) Revealing how species

loss affects ecosystem function: the trait-based price

equation partition. Ecology,89, 269–79.

France, K. E. and Duffy, J. E. (2006a). Consumer diversity

mediates invasion dynamics at multiple trophic levels.

Oikos,113, 515–29.

France, K. E. and Duffy, J. E. (2006b). Diversity and dis-

persal interactively affect predictability of ecosystem

function. Nature,441, 1139–43.

Frank, S. A. (1995) George Price’s contributions to evolu-

tionary genetics. Journal of Theoretical Biology,175,

373–88.

Frank, S. A. (1997) The Price Equation, Fisher’s funda-

mental theorem, kin selection and causal analysis. Evo-

lution,51, 1712–29.

Franklin, R. B., Garland, J. L., Bolster, C. H., and Mills, A. L.

(2001) Impact of dilution on microbial community struc-

ture and functional potential: comparison of numerical

simulations and batch culture experiments. Applied and

Environmental Microbiology,67,702–12.

Franzén, D. (2004) Plant species coexistence and dispersion

of seed traits in a grassland. Ecography,27, 218–24.

Free, J. B. (1993) Insect Pollination of Crops. Academic Press,

London.

Freeman, A. M. (2003) The Measurement of Environmental

and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Resources For

the Future, Washington, DC.

Freville, H., McConway, K., Dodd, M., and Silvertown, J.

(2007) Prediction of extinction in plants: interaction of

extrinsic threats and life history traits. Ecology,88,

2662–72.

Fridley, J. D., Stachowicz, J. J., Naeem, S., et al. (2007) The

invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and process in

species invasions. Ecology,88,3–17.

Frivold, L. and Frank, J. (2002) Growth of mixed birch–

coniferous stands in relation to pure coniferous stands at

similar sites in south-eastern Norway. Scandinavian

Journal of Forest Research,17, 139–49.

Fuhrman, J. A., Hewson, I., Schwalbach, M. S., Steele, J. A.,

Brown, M. V., and Naeem, S. (2006) Annually reoccur-

ring bacterial communities are predictable from ocean

conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the USA,103, 13104.

Fukami, T. and Morin, P. J. (2003) Productivity–

biodiversity relationships depend on the history of

community assembly. Nature,424, 423–6.

Fukami, T. and Wardle, D. A. (2005) Long-term ecological

dynamics: reciprocal insights from natural and anthro-

pogenic gradients. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:

Biological Sciences,272, 2105–15.

Fukami, T. Naeem, S., and Wardle, D. (2001) On similarity

among local communities in biodiversity experiments.

Oikos,95, 340–8.

Fukami, T., Bezemer, T. M., Mortimer, S. R., and Van der

Putten, W. H. (2005) Species divergence and trait con-

vergence in experimental plant community assembly.

Ecology Letters,8, 1283–90.

Fukami, T., Beaumont, H. J., Zhang, X. X., and Rainey, P.

B. (2007) Immigration history controls diversification in

experimental adaptive radiation. Nature,446, 436–9.

Fumanal, B., Chauvel, B., Sabatier, A., and Bretagnolle, F.

(2007) Variability and cryptic heteromorphism of

Ambrosia artemisiifolia seeds: what consequences for its

invasion in France? Annals of Botany,100, 305–13.

Gabriel, D., Roschewitz, I., Tscharntke, T., and Thies, C.

(2006) Beta diversity at different spatial scales: plant

communities in organic and conventional agriculture.

Ecological Applications,16, 2011–21.

Gamfeldt, L., Hillebrand, H., and Jonsson, P. R. (2005)

Species richness changes across two trophic levels

simultaneously affect prey and consumer biomass.

Ecology Letters,8, 696–703.

Gamfeldt, L., Hillebrand, H., and Jonsson, P. R. (2008)

Multiple functions increase the importance of biodiversity

for overall ecosystem functioning. Ecology,89,1223–31.

Garant,D.,Kruuk,L.E.B.,Wilkin,T.A.,McCleery,R.H.,

and Sheldon, B. C. (2005) Evolution driven by differ-

ential dispersal within a wild bird population. Nature,

433,60–5.

Garcia-Romero, A., Oropeza-Orozco, O., and Galicia-Sar-

miento, L. (2004) Land-use systems and resilience of

tropical rain forests in the Tehuantepec Isthmus, Mexico.

Environmental Management,34, 768–85.

316 REFERENCES

Garnier, E., Cortez, J., Billes, G., Navas, M. L., Roumet, C.,

Debussche, M., Laurent, G., Blanchard, A., Aubry, D.,

Bellmann, A., Neill, C., and Toussaint, J. P. (2004) Plant

functional markers capture ecosystem properties during

secondary succession. Ecology,85, 2630–7.

Garnier, E., Navas, M. L., Austin, M. P., Lilley, J. M., and

Gifford, R. M. (1997) A problem for biodiversity–

productivity studies: how to compare the productivity

of multispecific plant mixtures to that of monocultures?

Acta Oecologica,18, 657–70.

Gartner, T. B. and Cardon, Z. G. (2004) Decomposition

dynamics in mixed-species leaf litter. Oikos,104, 230–46.

Gascon, C. and Lovejoy, T. E. (1998) Ecological impacts of

forest fragmentation in central Amazonia. Zoology –

Analysis of Complex Systems,101, 273–80.

Gastine, A., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Leadley, P. W. (2003)

No consistent effects of plant diversity on root bio-

mass, soil biota and soil abiotic conditions in tem-

perate grassland communities. Applied Soil Ecology,24,

101–11.

Gaston, K. J. and Blackburn, T. M. (1995) Birds, body-size

and the threat of extinction. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,

347, 205–12.

Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M., and Goldewijk, K. K. (2003)

Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss.

Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Sciences,

270, 1293–300.

Gaudet, C. L. and Keddy, P. A. (1988) A comparative

approach to predicting competitive ability from plant

traits. Nature,334, 242–3.

Geist, C. and Galatowitsch, S. M. (1999) Reciprocal model

for meeting ecological and human needs in restoration

projects. Conservation Biology,13, 970–9.

Geist, H. J. and Lambin, E. F. (2002) Proximate causes and

underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bio-

science,52, 143–50.

Genghini, M., Gellini, S., and Gustin, M. (2006) Organic

and integrated agriculture: The effects on bird commu-

nities in orchard farms in northern Italy. Biodiversity and

Conservation,15, 3077–94.

Ghazoul, J. (2002) Flowers at the front line of invasion?

Ecological Entomology,27, 638–40.

Ghazoul, J. (2006) Floral diversity and the facilitation of

pollination. Journal of Ecology,94, 295–304.

Ghazoul, J. (2007) Challenges to the uptake of the ecosys-

tem service rationale for conservation. Conservation

Biology,21, 1651–2.

Gibson, R. H., Nelson, I. L., Hopkins, G. W., Hamplett, B.

J., and Memmott, J. (2006) Pollinator webs, plant

communities and the conservation of rare plants: arable

weedsasacasestudy.Journal of Applied Ecology,43,

246–57.

Gido, K. B. and Franssen, N. R. (2007) Invasion of stream

fishes into low trophic positions. Ecology of Freshwater

Fish,16, 457–64.

Gilbert, F., Gonzalez, A., and Evans-Freke, I. (1998) Cor-

ridors maintain species richness in the fragmented

landscapes of a microecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of London B,265, 577–82.

Giller, P. S., Hillebrand, H., Berninger, U. G., et al. (2004)

Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: emerging

issues and their experimental test in aquatic environ-

ments. Oikos,104, 423–36.

Gillespie, T. W. (2001) Application of extinction and con-

servation theories for forest birds in Nicaragua. Conser-

vation Biology,15, 699–709.

Gillison, A. N., Liswanti, N., Budidarsono, S., van

Noordwijk, M., and Tomich, T. P. (2004) Impact of

cropping methods on biodiversity in coffee agro-

ecosystems in Sumatra, Indonesia. Ecology and Soci-

ety,9,7.

Girvan, M. S., Campbell, C. D., Killham, K., Prosser, J. I.,

and Glover, L. A. (2005) Bacterial diversity promotes

community stability and functional resilience after

perturbation. Environmental Microbiology,7,301–13.

Gitay, H., Suárez, A., Watson, R., and Dokken, D. (2002)

Climate Change and Biodiversity. IPCC Technical Paper V –

April 2002. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Gittleman, J. L. and Purvis, A. (1998) Body size and spe-

cies-richness in carnivores and primates. Proceedings of

the Royal Society of London B,265, 113–19.

Givnish, T. J. (1994) Does diversity beget stability? Nature,

371, 113–14.

Glor, R. E., Flecker, A. S., Benard, M. F., and Power, A. G.

(2001) Lizard diversity and agricultural disturbance in a

Caribbean forest landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation,

10, 711–23.

Godbold, J. A. (2008) Marine benthic biodiversity–ecosystem

function relations in complex systems. Unpublished Ph.D.

Thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK.

Goeschl, T. and Swanson, T. (2002), On the economic

limits of technological potential: will industry resolve

the resistance problem? In T. Swanson (ed.) The Eco-

nomics of Managing Biotechnologies,pp.99–128. Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/London/Boston.

Goeschl, T. and Swanson, T. (2003) Pests, plagues, and

patents. Journal of the European Economic Association,1(2–3),

561–75.

Gomez-Aparicio, L., Canham, C. D., and Martin, P. H.

(2008) Neighbourhood models of the effects of the

invasive Acer platanoides on tree seedling dynamics:

REFERENCES 317

linking impacts on communities and ecosystems. Journal

of Ecology,96,78–90.

Gonzalez-Megias, A., Menendez, R., Roy, D., Brereton, T.,

and Thomas, C. D. (2008) Changes in the composition of

British butterfly assemblages over two decades. Global

Change Biology,14, 1464–74.

Gonzalez, A. (2000) Community relaxation in fragmented

landscapes: the relation between species, area and age.

Ecology Letters,3, 441–6.

Gonzalez, A. and Chaneton, E. (2002) Heterotroph species

extinction, abundance and biomass dynamics in an

experimentally fragmented microecosystem. Journal of

Animal Ecology,71, 594–602.

Gonzalez, A. and Descamps-Julien, B. (2004) Population

and community variability in randomly fluctuating

environments. Oikos,106, 105–16.

Gonzalez, A., Mouquet, N., and Loreau, M. (2009) Biodiver-

sity as spatial insurance: the effects of fragmentation and

dispersal on ecosystem functioning. In S. Naeem, D. Bun-

ker, A. Hector, M. Loreau, and C. Perrings (eds.) Biodiver-

sity and Human Impacts. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gordon, C., Manson, R., Sundberg, J., and Cruz-Angon, A.

(2007) Biodiversity, profitability, and vegetation struc-

ture in a Mexican coffee agroecosystern. Agriculture

Ecosystems & Environment,118, 256–66.

Gordon, D. R. (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous

plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from

Florida. Ecological Applications,8, 975–89.

Gottschalk, T. K., Diekotter, T., Ekschmitt, K., et al. (2007)

Impact of agricultural subsidies on biodiversity at the

landscape level. Landscape Ecology,22, 643–56.

Gough, L., Shrestha, K., Johnson, D. R., and Moon, B. (2008)

Long-term mammalian herbivory and nutrient addition

alter lichen community structure in Alaskan dry heath

tundra. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research,40,65–73.

Gould, A. M. A. and Gorchov, D. L. (2000) Effects of the

exotic invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on the survival

and fecundity of three species of native annuals. Amer-

ican Midland Naturalist,144,36–50.

Goulder, L. H. and Kennedy, D. (1997) Valuing ecosystem

services: philosophical bases and empirical methods. In

G. C. Daily (ed.) Nature’s Services, pp. 23–48. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Gower, S. T. (2003) Patterns and mechanisms of the forest

carbon cycle. Annual Review of Environment and Resour-

ces,28, 169–204.

Grace, J. B., Michael Anderson, T., Smith, M. D., et al. (2007)

Does species diversity limit productivity in natural

grassland communities? Ecology Letters,10, 680–9.

Graham, M. and Kennedy, J. (2007) Visual exploration of

alternative taxonomies through concepts. Ecological

Informatics,2, 248–61.

Grasman, R. and Gramacy, R. B. (2008) Geometry: mesh

generation and surface tesselation. R package version0.1-1.

Grau,H.R.,Aide,T.M.,Zimmerman,J.K.,Thomlinson,

J. R., Helmer, E., and Zou, X. M. (2003) The ecological

consequences of socioeconomic and land-use changes

in postagriculture Puerto Rico. Bioscience,53,1159–68.

Green,J.L.,Holmes,A.J.,Westoby,M.,Oliver,I.,Briscoe,

D., Dangerfield, M., Gillings, M., and Beattie, A. J. (2004)

Spatial scaling of microbial eukaryotic diversity. Nature,

432,747–50.

Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., and

Balmford, A. (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature.

Science,307, 550–5.

Greenleaf, S. A. and Kremen, C. (2006a). Wild bees

enhance honeybees’pollination of hybrid sunflower.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,

103, 13890–5.

Greenleaf, S. A. and Kremen, C. (2006b). Wild bee species

increase tomato production and respond differently to

surrounding land use in Northern California. Biological

Conservation,133, 128–35.

Griffin, J., O’Gorman, E., Emmerson, M., et al. (2009) Bio-

diversity and the stability of ecosystem functioning. In S.

Naeem, D. Bunker, A. Hector, M. Loreau, and C. Per-

rings (eds.) Biodiversity and Human Impacts. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

Griffiths, B. S., Ritz, K., Bardgett, R. D., et al. (2000) Eco-

system response of pasture soil communities to fumi-

gation-induced microbial diversity reductions: an

examination of the biodiversity–ecosystem function

relationship. Oikos,90, 279–94.

Griffiths, B. S., Bonkowski, M., Roy, J., and Ritz, K. (2001)

Functional stability, substrate utilisation and biological

indicators of soils following environmental impacts.

Applied Soil Ecology,16,49–61.

Griffiths, B. S., Kuan, H. L., Ritz, K., Glover, L. A.,

McCaig, A. E., and Fenwick, C. (2004) The relationship

between microbial community structure and functional

stability, tested experimentally in an upland pasture soil.

Microbial Ecology,47, 104–13.

Griffiths, G. J. K., Holland, J. M., Bailey, A., and

Thomas, M. B. (2008) Efficacy and economics of shelter

habitats for conservation biological control. Biological

Control,45, 200–9.

Grime, J. P. (1979) Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes.

Wiley, New York.

Grime, J. P. (1998) Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems:

immediate, filter and founder effects. Journal of Ecology,

86, 902–10.

Grime, J. P. (2006) Trait convergence and trait divergence

in herbaceous plant communities: mechanisms and

consequences. Journal of Vegetation Science,17, 255–60.

318 REFERENCES

Gross, K., and Cardinale, B. J. (2005) The functional con-

sequences of random vs. ordered species extinctions.

Ecology Letters,8, 409–18.

Gross, M. (2008) Algal biofuel hopes. Current Biology,18,

46–7.

Grover, J. P. and Loreau, M. (1996) Linking communities

and ecosystems: trophic interactions as nutrient cycling

pathways. In M. E. Hochberg, J. Clobert, and R. Barbault

(eds.) Aspects of the Genesis and Maintenance of Biological

Diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Guariguata, M. R., Rheingans, R., and Montagnini, F.

(1995) Early woody invasion under tree plantations in

Costa Rica: Implications for forest restoration. Restora-

tion Ecology,3, 252–60.

Gunderson, L. H. (2000) Ecological resilience –in theory

and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systemat-

ics,31, 425–39.

Guo, L. B. and Gifford, R. M. (2002) Soil carbon stocks and

land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology,

8, 345–60.

Gurevitch, J. and Padilla, D. K. (2004) Are invasive species

a major cause of extinctions? Trends in Ecology & Evo-

lution,19, 470–4.

Guterman, L. (2000) Have ecologists oversold

biodiversity? Some scientists question experiments on

how numerous species help ecosystems. The Chronicle of

Higher Education,47, A24–A26.

Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., Krausmann, F., et al. (2007) Quan-

tifying and mapping the human appropriation of net

primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,

104, 12942–7.

Hacker, S. D. and Dethier, M. N. (2006) Community

modification by a grass invader has differing impacts for

marine habitats. Oikos,113, 279–86.

Haggar, J. P. and Ewel, J. J. (1997) Primary productivity

and resource partitioning in model tropical ecosystems.

Ecology,78, 1211–21.

Haines-Young, R. H., Barr, C. J., Black, H. I. J., et al. (2000)

Accounting for Nature: Assessing Habitats in the UK

Countryside. Department of the Environment, Transport

and the Regions, London.

Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E., and Slobodkin, L. B. (1960)

Community structure, population control, and compe-

tition. American Naturalist,94, 421–5.

Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., et al. (2008) A

global map of human impact on marine ecosystems.

Science,319, 948–52.

Hambäck, P. A. (2001) Direct and indirect effects of

herbivory: feeding by spittlebugs affects pollinator

visitation rates and seedset of Rudbeckia hirta.Ecoscience,

8,45–50.

Hamilton, K. and Clemens, M. (1999) Genuine savings

rates in developing countries. World Bank Economic

Review,13, 333–56.

Hamilton, M. A., Murray, B. R., Cadotte, M. W., et al. (2005)

Life-history correlates of plant invasiveness at regional

and continental scales. Ecology Letters,8,1066–74.

Hannon, B. (1973) The structure of ecosystems. Journal of

Theoretical Biology,41, 535–46.

Hanski, I. and Ovaskainen, O. (2002) Extinction debt at

extinction threshold. Conservation Biology,16, 666–73.

Harakunarak, A. and Aksornkoae, S. (2005) Life-saving

belts: Post-tsunami reassessment of mangrove ecosys-

tem values and management in Thailand. Tropical

Coasts, July, 48–55.

Harcourt, A. H., Coppeto, S. A., and Parks, S. A. (2002)

Rarity, specialization and extinction in primates. Journal

of Biogeography,29, 445–56.

Harper, J. L. (1977) Population Biology of Plants. Academic

Press, London.

Harpole, W. S. and Tilman, D. (2007) Grassland species

loss resulting from reduced niche dimension. Nature,

446, 791–3.

Harte, J. and Shaw, R. (1995) Shifting dominance within a

montane vegetation community –results of a climate-

warming experiment. Science,267, 876–80.

Hartwick, J. M. (1977) Intergenerational equity and the

investing of rents from exhaustible resources. American

Economic Review,66, 972–4.

Hartwick, J. M. (1978) Substitution among exhaustible

resources and intergenerational equity. Review of Eco-

nomic Studies,45(2), 347–54.

Harvey, C. A., Medina, A., Sanchez, D. M., et al. (2006)

Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree

cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Applications,

16, 1986–99.

Hassan, R. (2003) Measuring asset values and flow benefits

of non-traded products and ecosystems services of forest

and woodland resources in South Africa. Environment,

Development and Sustainability,5, 403–18.

Hassell, M. P., Comins, H. N., and May, R. M. (1994)

Species coexistence and self-organizing spatial dynam-

ics. Nature,379, 290–2.

Hasselwandter, K. (1997) Soil micro-organisms, mycorrhiza,

and restoration ecology. In K. M. Urbanska, N. R. Webb,

and P. J. Edwards (eds.) Restoration Ecology and

Sustainable Development. Cambridge University Press,

New York.

Hättenschwiler, S. (2005) Effect of tree species diversity

on litter quality and decomposition. In M. Scherer-

Lorenzen,C.Körner, and E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The

Functional Significance of Forest Diversity, Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, Heidelberg.

REFERENCES 319

Hättenschwiler, S. and Gasser, P. (2005) Soil animals alter

plant litter diversity effects on decomposition. Proceed-

ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,102,

1519–24.

Hättenschwiler, S., Tiunov, A. V., and Scheu, S. (2005)

Biodiversity and litter decomposition in terrestrial eco-

systems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Sys-

tematics,36, 191–218.

Havel, J. E. and Medley, K. A. (2006) Biological invasions

across spatial scales: intercontinental, regional, and local

dispersal of Cladoceran zooplankton. Biological Inva-

sions,8, 459–73.

Hawes, C., Begg, G. S., Squire, G. R., and Iannetta, P. P. M.

(2005) Individuals as the basic accounting unit in studies

of ecosystem function: functional diversity in shepherd’s

purse, Capsella.Oikos,109, 521–34.

He, F. L. and Hu, X. S. (2005) Hubbell’s fundamental

biodiversity parameter and the Simpson diversity index.

Ecology Letters,8, 386–90.

Heal, G. (2000) Biodiversity as a commodity. In S. A. Levin

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Vol. 1, pp. 359–76.

Academic Press, New York.

Heal, G. M., Barbier, E. B., Boyle, K. J., et al. (2005) Valuing

Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision

Making. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Hector, A. (1998) The effect of diversity on productivity:

detecting the role of species complementarity. Oikos,82,

597–9.

Hector, A. and Bagchi, R. (2007) Biodiversity and ecosys-

tem multifunctionality. Nature,448, 188–90.

Hector, A. and Hooper, R. (2002) Darwin and the first

ecological experiment. Science,295, 639–40.

Hector, A., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., et al. (1999) Plant

diversity and productivity experiments in european

grasslands. Science,286, 1123–7.

Hector, A., Beale, A. J., Minns, A., Otway, S. J., and

Lawton, J. H. (2000) Consequences of the reduction of

plant diversity for litter decomposition: effects through

litter quality and microenvironment. Oikos,90, 357–71.

Hector, A., Dobson, K., Minns, A., Bazeley-White, E., and

Lawton, J. H. (2001) Community diversity and invasion

resistance: an experimental test in a grassland ecosystem

and a review of comparable studies. Ecological Research,

16, 819–31.

Hector, A., Bazeley-White, E., Loreau, M., Otway, S., and

Schmid, B. (2002a) Overyielding in plant communities:

Testing the sampling effect hypothesis with replicated

biodiversity experiments. Ecology Letters,5, 502–11.

Hector, A., Loreau, M., Schmid, B. and The BIODEPTH

Project (2002b) Biodiversity manipulation experiments:

studies replicated at multiple sites. In M. Loreau,

S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti (eds.) Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives.OxfordUniversity

Press, Oxford.

Hector, A., Joshi, J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., et al. (2007)

Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: reconciling the

results of experimental and observational studies.

Functional Ecology,21, 998–1002.

Hedlund, K., Regina, I. S., Van der Putten, W. H., Leps, J.,

Diaz, T., Korthals, G. W., Lavorel, S., Brown, V. K.,

Gormsen, D., Mortimer, S. R., Barrueco, C. R., Roy, J.,

Smilauer, P., Smilauerova, M., and Van Dijk, C. (2003)

Plant species diversity, plant biomass and responses of

the soil community on abandoned land across Europe:

idiosyncrasy or above–belowground time lags. Oikos,

103,45–58.

Heemsbergen, D. A., Berg, M. P., Loreau, M., van Hal, J. R.,

Faber, J. H., and Verhoef, H. A. (2004) Biodiversity effects

on soil processes explained by interspecific functional

dissimilarity. Science,306,1019.

Heino, J. (2005) Functional biodiversity of macro-

invertebrate assemblages along major ecological gra-

dients of boreal headwater streams. Freshwater Biology,

50, 1578–87.

Heisse, K., Roscher, C., Schumacher, J., and Schulze, E. D.

(2007) Establishment of grassland species in mono-

cultures: different strategies lead to success. Oecologia,

152, 435–47.

Henle, K., Davies, K. F., Kleyer, M., Margules, C. and

Settele, J. (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to

fragmentation. Biodiversity and Conservation,13, 207–51.

Henle, K., Dziock, F., Foeckler, F., et al. (2006) Study design

for assessing species environment relationships and

developing indicator systems for ecological changes in

ﬂoodplains –the approach of the Riva project. Interna-

tional Review of Hydrobiology,91, 292–313.

Herendeen, R. (1991) Do economic-like principles predict

ecosystem behavior under changing resource con-

straints? In M. Higashi and T. Burns (eds.) Theoretical

Studies of Ecosystems: the Network Perspective. Cambridge

University Press, New York.

Hero, J. M., Williams, S. E., and Magnusson, W. E. (2005)

Ecological traits of declining amphibians in upland areas

of eastern Australia. Journal of Zoology,267, 221–32.

Herrera, C. M. (1988) Variation in mutualisms: the spatio-

temporal mosaic of a pollinator community. Biological

Journal of the Linnean Society,35,95–125.

Herrmann, F., Westphal, C., Moritz, R. F. A., and Steffan-

Dewenter, I. (2007) Genetic diversity and mass resources

promote colony size and forager densities of a social bee

(Bombus pascuorum) in agricultural landscapes. Molecular

Ecology,16, 1167–78.

Hicks, J. R. (1939) Value and Capital. Clarendon Press,

Oxford.

320 REFERENCES

Hildén, M., Furman, E., Varjopuro, R., et al. (2006) Views

on biodiversity research in Europe. Reports of Finnish

Environment Institute, No. 16. Finland.

Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., and Randle, A. M. (2005)

The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society,10,

Article 19.

Hill, A. R. (1996) Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones.

Journal of Environmental Quality,25, 743–55.

Hillebrand, H. and Cardinale, B. J. (2004) Consumer effects

decline with prey diversity. Ecology Letters,7, 192–201.

Hiremath, A. J. and Ewel, J. J. (2001) Ecosystem nutrient

use efficiency, productivity, and nutrient accrual in

model tropical communities. Ecosystems,4,669–82.

Hirsch, J. E. (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s

scientific research output. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA,102, 16569–72.

Hobbie, S. E. (1992) Effects of plant species on nutrient

cycling. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,7, 336–9.

Hobbs, R. J. (2006) Foreword. In D. A. Falk, M. A. Palmer

and J. B. Zedler (eds.) Foundations of Restoration Ecology.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Hobbs, R. J. and Huenneke, L. F. (1992) Disturbance,

diversity, and invasion –implications for conservations.

Conservation Biology,6, 324–37.

Hodgson, D. J., Rainey, P. B., and Buckling, A. (2002)

Mechanisms linking diversity, productivity and invasi-

bility in experimental bacterial communities. Proceedings

of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,

269, 2277–83.

Hodgson, J. G., Wilson, P. J., Hunt, R., Grime, J. P., and

Thompson, K. (1999) Allocating C-S-R plant functional

types: a soft approach to a hard problem. Oikos,85,282–94.

Hodgson, J. R. and Illius, A. W. (eds.) (1996) The Ecology

and Management of Grazing Systems. CAB International,

New York.

Hoehn, P., Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J. M., and Steffan-

Dewenter, I. (2008) Functional group diversity of bee

pollinators increases crop yield. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of London, Series B,275, 2283–91.

Holdren, J. P. (2008) Presidential Address: Science and

Technology for Sustainable Well-Being. Science,319,

424–34.

Hole, D. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H.,

Grice, F., and Evans, A. D. (2005) Does organic farming

benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation,122,

113–30.

Holling, C. S. (1973) Resilience and the stability of eco-

logical systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,

4,1–23.

Holling, C. S. (1988) Temperate forest insect outbreaks,

tropical deforestation and migratory birds. Memoirs of

the Entomological Society of Canada,146,21–32.

Holling, C. S. (1996) Engineering resilience versus eco-

logical resilience. In P. Schulze (ed.) Engineering Within

Ecological Constraints, pp. 31–44. National Academy

Press, Washington, DC.

Hollowell, V. C. (ed.) (2001) Managing Human Dominated

Ecosystems. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St Louis.

Holmes, R. T., Bonney, R. E. J., and Pacala, S. W. (1979)

Guild structure of the Hubbard Brook bird community:

a multivariate approach. Ecology,60, 512–20.

Holt, R. D. (1990) The microevolutionary consequences of

climate change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,5,311–15.

Holt, R. D. (1993) Ecology at the mesoscale: the influence of

regional processes on local communities. In R. E. Ricklefs

and D. Schluter (eds.) Species Diversity in Ecological Com-

munities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives,pp.77–88.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Holt, R. D. (2008) The community context of disease

emergence: could changes in predation be a key driver?

In R. S. Ostfeld, F. Keesing, and V. T. Eviner (eds.)

Infectious Disease Ecology: Effects of Ecosystems on Disease

and of Disease on Ecosystems, pp. 324–46. Princeton Uni-

versity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Holt, R. D. and Loreau, M. (2002) Biodiversity and eco-

system functioning: the role of trophic interactions and

the importance of system openness. In A. P. Kinzig,

S. W. Pacala, and D. Tilman (eds.) The Functional Con-

sequences of Biodiversity, pp. 213–45. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ.

Holt, R. D. and Polis, G. A. (1997) A theoretical frame-

work for intraguild predation. American Naturalist,149,

745–64.

Holt, R. D., Grover, J., and Tilman, D. (1994) Simple rules

for interspecific dominance in systems with exploitative

and apparent competition. American Naturalist,144,

741–71.

Holway, D. A. (1999) Competitive mechanisms underlying

the displacement of native ants by the invasive Argen-

tine ant. Ecology,80, 238–51.

Holway, D. A., Lach, L., Suarez, A. V., Tsutsui, N. D., and

Case, T. J. (2002) The causes and consequences of ant

invasions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,33,

181–233.

Holyoak, M. (2000) Habitat subdivision causes changes in

food web structure. Ecology Letters,3, 509–15.

Holyoak, M., Leibold, M. A., and Holt, R. D. (2005)

Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Com-

munities. Chicago Press.

Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Leijn, D., and

Tscharntke, T. (2007) Diversity of flower-visiting bees in

cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape com-

position and regional context. Journal of Applied Ecology,

44,41–9.

REFERENCES 321

Hooper, D. U. and Dukes, J. S. (2004) Overyielding among

plant functional groups in a long-term experiment.

Ecology Letters,7,95–105.

Hooper, D. U. and Vitousek, P. M. (1997) The effects of

plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes.

Science,277, 1302–5.

Hooper, D. and Vitousek, P. (1998) Effects of plant com-

position and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecological

Monographs,68, 121–49.

Hooper, D., Bignell, D., Brown, V., et al. (2000) Interactions

between aboveground and belowground biodiversity in

terrestrial ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms, and feed-

backs. Bioscience,50, 1049–61.

Hooper, D. U., Solan, M., Symstad, A., et al. (2002) Species

diversity, functional diversity, and ecosystem function-

ing. In M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti (eds.)

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and

Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York.

Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., and Ewel, J. J. et al. (2005)

Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a con-

sensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs,75,

3–35.

Horner-Devine, M. C., Carney, K. M., and Bohannan, B. J. M.

(2004) An ecological perspective on bacterial biodiversity.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological

Sciences,271,113–22.

Hoskin, C. J., Higgie, M., McDonald, K. R., and Moritz, C.

(2005) Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation.

Nature,437, 1353–6.

Howarth, R. B. and Farber, S. (2002) Accounting for the

value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics,41,

421–9

Hoyle, M. (2004) Causes of the species–area relationship

by trophic level in a field-based microecosystem. Pro-

ceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological

Sciences,271, 1159–64.

Hraber, P. T. and Milne, B. T. (1997) Community assembly

in a model ecosystem. Ecological Modelling,103, 267–85.

Hubbell, S. P. (2001) The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodi-

versity and Biogeography. Princeton University Press,

Princeton.

Hughes, A. R. and Stachowicz, J. J. (2004) Genetic diversity

enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to dis-

turbance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the USA,101, 8998–9002.

Hughes, A. R., Daily, G. C., and Ehrlich, P. R. (1997)

Population diversity: its extent and extinction. Science,

278, 689–92.

Hughes, A. R., Inouye, B. D., Johnson, M. T. C., Under-

wood, N., and Vellend, M. (2008) Ecological con-

sequences of genetic diversity. Ecology Letters,11,

609–23.

Hughes, J. B. and Petchey, O. L. (2001) Merging perspec-

tives on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Trends

in Ecology and Evolution,16, 222–3.

Hughes, J. B., Hellmann, J. J., Ricketts, T. H., and Bohan-

nan, B. J. M. (2001) Counting the uncountable: statistical

approaches to estimating microbial diversity. Applied

Environmental Microbiology,67, 4399–406.

Hughes, T. P. (1994) Catastrophes, phase-shifts, and large-

scale degradation of a Caribbean coral-reef. Science,265,

1547–51.

Hulkrantz, L. (1992) National accounts of timber and forest

environmental resources in Sweden. Environmental and

Resource Economics,2, 283–305.

Hulme, P. E. and Bremner, E. T. (2006) Assessing the

impact of Impatiens glandulifera on riparian habitats:

partitioning diversity components following species

removal. Journal of Applied Ecology,43,43–50.

Hulot, F. D., Lacroix, G., Lescher-Moutoué,F.andLoreau,M.

(2000) Functional diversity governs ecosystem response

to nutrient enrichment. Nature,405,340–4.

Hunter, T., Peacock, L., Turner, H., and Brain, P. (2002)

Effect of plantation design on stem-infecting form of rust

in willow biomass coppice. Forest Pathology,32,87–97.

Hurd, L. E. and Wolf, L. L. (1974) Stability in relation to

nutrient enrichment in arthropod consumers of old-field

successional ecosystems. Ecological Monographs,44,

465–82.

Huston, M. A. and McBride, A. (2002) Evaluating the

relative strengths of biotic versus abiotic controls of

ecosystem processes. In M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and

P. Inchausti (eds.) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Huston, M. A. (1997) Hidden treatments in ecological

experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of

biodiversity. Oecologia,110, 449–60.

Huston, M. A. and Smith, T. (1987) Plant succession: life

hisory and competition. American Naturalist,130,168–9.

Hutchings, J. A. and Baum, J. K. (2005) Measuring marine

fish biodiversity: temporal changes in abundance, life

history and demography. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,360, 315–38.

Hutchinson, G. E. (1961) The paradox of the plankton.

American Naturalist,95, 137.

Hutton, S. A. and Giller, P. S. (2003) The effects of the

intensification of agriculture on northern temperate

dung beetle communities. Journal of Applied Ecology,40,

994–1007.

Huxel, G. R. and McCann, K. (1998) Food web stability: the

influence of trophic flows across habitats. American

Naturalist,152, 460–9.

Ieno,E.N.,Solan,M.,Batty,P.,et al. (2006) How bio-

diversity affects ecosystem functioning: roles of

322 REFERENCES

infaunal species richness, identity and density in the

marine benthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series,311,

263–71.

IGBP (1998) The terrestrial carbon cycle: Implications for

the Kyoto Protocol. Science,280, 1393–4.

Imhoff, M. L., Bounoua, L., Ricketts, T., Loucks, C.,

Harriss, R. and Lawrence, W. T. (2004) Global patterns in

human consumption of net primary production. Nature,

429,870–3.

Innes, R., Polasky, S., and Tschirhart, J. (1998) Takings,

compensation and endangered species protection on

private lands. Journal of Economic Perspectives,12,

35–52.

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palu-

tikof, P. J. v. d. Linden and C. E. Hanson (eds.) Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ives, A. R. and Cardinale, B. J. (2004) Food-web interac-

tions govern the resistance of communities after non-

random extinctions. Nature,429, 174–7.

Ives, A. R. and Carpenter, S. R. (2007) Stability and

diversity of ecosystems. Science,317,58–62.

Ives, A. R. and Hughes, J. B. (2002) General relationships

between species diversity and stability in competitive

systems. American Naturalist,159, 388–95.

Ives, A. R., Cardinale, B. J., and Snyder, W. E. (2005) A

synthesis of subdisciplines: predator–prey interactions,

and biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Ecology

Letters,8, 102–16.

Ives, A. R., Gross, K., and Klug, J. L. (1999) Stability and

variability in competitive communities. Science,286,

542–4.

Ives, A. R., Klug, J. L., and Gross, K. (2000) Stability and

species richness in complex communities. Ecology Letters,

3, 399–411.

Ives, A. R., Woody, S. T., Nordheim, E. V., Nelson, C., and

Andrews, J. H. (2004) The synergistic effects of sto-

chasticity and dispersal on population densities. Ameri-

can Naturalist,163, 375–87.

Iyengar, V. K., Reeve, H. K., and Eisner, T. (2002) Paternal

inheritance of a female moth’s mating preference.

Nature,419, 830–2.

Jackson, L. E., Mayberry, K., Laemmlen, Koike, S.,

Schulbach, K., and Chaney, W. (1996) Iceberg Lettuce

Production in California. University of California Division

of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Jackson, L. E., Pascual, U., and Hodgkin, T. (2007) Utiliz-

ing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural

landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment,

121, 196–210.

Jackson, R. B., Fierer, N., and Schimel, J. P. (2007) New

directions in microbial ecology. Ecology,88, 1343–4.

Jackson, R. B., Jobbagy, E. G., Avissar, R., et al. (2005)

Trading water for carbon with biological carbon

sequestration. Science,310, 1944–7.

Jactel, H., Brockerhoff, E., and Duelli, P. (2005) A test of

the biodiversity–stability theory: meta-analysis of

tree species diversity effects on insect pest infestations,

and re-examination of responsible factors. In

M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Koerner, and E.-D. Schulze

(eds.) Forest Diversity and Function. Springer-Verlag,

Berlin.

Jaffe, A. B., Peterson, S. R., Portney, P. R., and Stavins, R.

N. (1995) Environmental regulation and the competi-

tiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence

tell us? Journal of Economic Literature,33,132–63.

Jandl, R., Lindner, M., Vesterdal, L., et al. (2007) How

strongly can forest management inﬂuence soil carbon

sequestration? Geoderma,137, 253–68.

Janzen, D. (1970) Herbivores and the number of tree spe-

cies in tropical forests. American Naturalist,104, 501.

Jax, K. (2005) Function and “functioning”in ecology: what

does it mean? Oikos,111, 641–8.

Jenkins, D. G., Brescacin, C. R., Duxbury, C. V., Elliott, J. A.,

Evans, J. A., Grablow, K. R., Hillegass, M., Lyono, B. N.,

Metzger, G. A., Olandese, M. L., Pepe, D., Silvers, G. A.,

Suresch, H. N., Thompson, T. N., Trexler, C. M.,

Williams, G.E., Williams, N.C., and Williams, S. E. (2007)

Does size matter for dispersal distance? Global Ecology and

Biogeography,16,415–25.

Jenkinson, D. (1971) Studies on the decomposition of

C-

labelled organic matter in soil. Soil Science,111,64–70.

Jennings, S., Greenstreet, S. P. R., and Reynolds, J. D.

(1999) Structural change in an exploited fish community:

a consequence of differential fishing effects on species

with contrasting life histories. Journal of Animal Ecology,

68, 617–27.

Jennings, S., Melin, F., Blanchard, J. L., Forster, R. M.,

Dulvy, N. K., and Wilson, R. W. (2008) Global-scale

predictions of community and ecosystem properties

from simple ecological theory. Proceedings of the Royal

Society B: Biological Sciences,275, 1375–83.

Jennings, S., Reynolds, J. D., and Mills, S. C. (1998) Life

history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Bio-

logical Sciences,265, 333–9.

Jensen, J. L. (1906) Sur les functions convexes et les ineg-

alitiés entre les valeurs moyennes. Acta Mathematica,30,

175–93.

Jeschke, J. M. and Strayer, D. L. (2006) Determinants of

vertebrate invasion success in Europe and North

America. Global Change Biology,12, 1608–19.

REFERENCES 323

Jessup, C. M., Kassen, R., Forde, S. E., Kerr, B., Buckling, A.,

Rainey, P. B., and Bohannan, B. J. M. (2004) Bigquestions,

small worlds: microbial model systems in ecology. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution,19,189–97.

Jessup, C. M., Forde, S. E., and Bohannan, B. J. M. (2005)

Microbial experimental systems in ecology. Advances in

Ecological Research,37, 273–307.

Jiang, L. (2007) Negative selection effects suppress rela-

tionships between bacterial diversity and ecosystem

functioning. Ecology,88, 1075–85.

Jiang, L. and Morin, P. J. (2005) Predator diet breadth

influences the relative importance of bottom-up and top-

down control of prey biomass and diversity. American

Naturalist,165, 350–63.

Jiang, X. L., Zhang, W. G., and Wang, G. (2007) Effects of

different components of diversity on productivity in

artificial plant communities. Ecological Research,22,

629–34.

Jiang, L., Pu, Z., and Nemergut, D. R. (2008) On the

importance of the negative selection effect for the rela-

tionship between biodiversity and ecosystem function-

ing. Oikos,117, 488–93.

Jiguet, F., Gadot, A. S., Julliard, R., Newson, S. E., and

Couvet, D. (2007) Climate envelope, life history traits

and the resilience of birds facing global change. Global

Change Biology,13, 1672–84.

Jobbagy, E. G. and Jackson, R. B. (2000) The vertical

distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to

climate and vegetation. Ecological Applications,10,

423–36.

Johnson, C. N., Delean, S., and Balmford, A. (2002) Phy-

logeny and the selectivity of extinction in Australian

marsupials. Animal Conservation,5, 135–42.

Johnson, S. D., Peter, C. I., Nilsson, L. A., and Agren, J.

(2003) Pollination success in a deceptive orchid is

enhanced by co-occurring rewarding magnet plants.

Ecology,84, 2919–17.

Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., Iovanna, R., Miller, C. J.,

Wardwell, R. F., and Ranson, M. H. (2005) Systematic

variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource

improvements and implications for benefit transfer, a

meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics,

53, 221–48.

Johnston, R. J., Ranson, M. H., Besedin, E. Y., and Helm, E. C.

(2006) What determines willingness to pay per fish? A

meta-analysis of recreational fishing values. Marine

Resource Economics,21,1–32.

Jones, C. G., Lawton, J. H., and Shachak, M. (1994)

Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos,69, 373–86.

Jones, H. E., McNamara, N., and Mason, W. L. (2005)

Functioning of mixed-species stands: evidence from a

long-term forest experiment. In M. Scherer-Lorenzen,

C. Körner, and E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The Functional

Significance of Forest Diversity, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Jones, K. E., Purvis, A., and Gittleman, J. L. (2003) Bio-

logical correlates of extinction risk in bats. American

Naturalist,161, 601–14.

Jones, K. E., Patel, N. G., Levy, M. A., Storeygard, A., Balk,

D., Gittleman, J. L., and Daszak, P. (2008) Global trends

in emerging infectious diseases. Nature,451,990–4.

Jonsson, L. M., Nilsson, M. C., Wardle, D. A., and

Zackrisson, O. (2001) Context dependent effects of ecto-

mycorrhizal species richness on tree seedling

productivity. Oikos,93,353.

Jonsson, M. (2006) Species richness effects on ecosystem

functioning increase with time in an ephemeral resource

system. Acta Oecologica –International Journal of Ecology,

29,72–7.

Jonsson, M. and Malmqvist, B. (2000) Ecosystem process rate

increases with animal species richness: evidence from leaf-

eating, aquatic insects. Oikos,89,519–23.

Jonsson, M., Dangles, O., Malmqvist, B., and Guerold, F.

(2002) Simulating species loss following perturbation:

assessing the effects on process rates. Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,269,

1047–52.

Jordan, N., Boody, G., Broussard, W., et al. (2007)

Environment –sustainable development of the agricul-

tural bio-economy. Science,316,1570–1.

Jordano, P., Bascompte, J., and Olesen, J. M. (2003)

Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of

plant–animal interactions. Ecology Letters,6,69–81.

Joshi, J., Matthies, D., and Schmid, B. (2000) Root hemi-

parasites and plant diversity in experimental grassland

communities. Journal of Ecology,88, 634–44.

Joshi, J., Schmid, B., Caldeira, M., et al. (2001) Local

adaptation enhances performance of common plant

species. Ecology Letters,4, 536–44.

Joyce, C. (2001) The sensitivity of a species-rich flood-

meadow plant community to fertilizer nitrogen: the

Luznice river floodplain, Czech Republic. Plant Ecology,

155,47–60.

Just, R. E., Hueth, D. L., and Schmitz, A. (2004) The Welfare

Economics of Public Policy: A Practical Approach to Project

and Policy Evaluation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Kahmen, A., Perner, J., and Buchmann, N. (2005) Diversity-

dependent productivity in semi-natural grasslands fol-

lowing climate perturbations. Functional Ecology,19,

594–601.

Kaiser, J. K. (2000) Rift over biodiversity divides ecologists.

Science,289, 1282–3.

Kareiva, P. and Wennergren, U. (1995) Connecting land-

scape patterns to ecosystem and population processes.

Nature,373, 299–302.

324 REFERENCES

Kareiva, P., Watts, S., McDonald, R., and Boucher, T.

(2007) Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes

and ecosystems for human welfare. Science,316, 1866–9.

Kark, S., Mukerji, T., Safriel, U. N., Noy-Meir, I., Nissani, R.,

and Darvasi, A. (2002) Peak morphological diversity in

an ecotone unveiled in the chukar partridge by a novel

estimator in a dependent sample (eds). Journal of Animal

Ecology,71,1015–29.

Kates, R. W. and Parris, T. M. (2003) Long-term trends and

a sustainability transition. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA,100, 8062–7.

Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., et al. (2001)

Environment and development: sustainability science.

Science,292, 641–2.

Kathiresan, K. and Rajendran, N. (2005) Coastal mangrove

forests mitigated tsunami. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf

Science,65, 601–6.

Keane, R. M. and Crawley, M. J. (2002) Exotic plant inva-

sions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends in Ecol-

ogy & Evolution,17, 164–70.

Kearns, C., Inouye, D., and Waser, N. (1998) Endangered

mutualisms: the conservation of plant–pollinator inter-

actions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,29,

83–112.

Keer, G. H. and Zedler, J. B. (2002) Salt marsh canopy

architecture differs with the number and composition of

species. Ecological Applications,12, 456–73.

Keesing, F., Holt, R. D., and Ostfeld, R. S. (2006) Effects of

species diversity on disease risk. Ecology Letters,9,

485–98.

Keitt, T. H., Urban, D. L., and Milne., B. T. (1997) Detecting

critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation

Ecology,1, 4; URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/

iss1/art4/.

Keller, R. P., Lodge, D. M., and Finnoff, D. C. (2007) Risk

assessment for invasive species produces net bioeco-

nomic benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the USA,104, 203–7.

Kelso, S., Bower, N. W., Heckmann, K. E., Beardsley, P. M.,

and Greve, D. G. (2003) Geobotany of the Niobrara

chalk barrens in Colorado: a study of edaphic

endemism. Western North American Naturalist,63,

299–313.

Kemp, D. R., King, W. M., Gilmore, A. R., Lodge, G. M.,

Murphy, S. R., Quigley, P. E., Sandford, P., and

Andrew, M. H. (2003) SGS biodiversity theme: impact of

plant diversity on the productivity and stability of

grazing systems across southern Australia. Australian

Journal of Experimental Agriculture,43, 961–75.

Kennedy, A. D., Biggs, H., and Zambatis, N. (2003) Rela-

tionship between grass species richness and ecosystem

stability in Kruger National Park, South Africa. African

Journal of Ecology,41, 131–40.

Kennedy, T. A., Naeem, S., Howe, K. M., Knops, J. M. H,

Tilman, D., and Reich, P. (2002) Biodiversity as a barrier

to ecological invasion. Nature,417, 636–8.

Kiessling, W. and Aberhan, M. (2007) Geographical dis-

tribution and extinction risk: lessons from Triassic–-

Jurassic marine benthic organisms. Journal of

Biogeography,34, 1473–89.

Kim, J., Williams, N., and Kremen, C. (2006) Effects of

cultivation and proximity to natural habitat on ground-

nesting native bees in California sunflower fields. Journal

of the Kansas Entomological Society,79, 309–20.

Kim, S., Tschirhart, J., and Buskirk, S. (2007) Reconstruct-

ing past population processes with general equilibrium

models: house mice in Kern County, California, 1926–27.

Ecological Modelling,209, 235–48.

Kindscher, K. and Tieszen, L. L. (1998) Floristic and soil

organic matter changes after five and thirty-five years of

native tallgrass prairie restoration. Restoration Ecology,6,

181–96.

Kindscher, K. and Wells, P. V. (1995) Prairie plant guilds:

a multivariate analysis of prairie species based on

ecological and morphological traits. Vegetatio,117,

29–50.

King, E. G. and Hobbs, R. J. (2006) Identifying linkages

among conceptual models of ecosystem degradation

and restoration: towards an integrative framework.

Restoration Ecology,14, 369–78.

Kinzig, A. P., Pacala, S. W., and Tilman, D. (eds.) (2001)

The Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Empirical

Progress and Theoretical Extensions. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ.

Kirchhoff, S., Colby, B. G., and LaFrance, J. T. (1997)

Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer, an

empirical inquiry. Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management,33,75–93.

Kirwan, L., Luescher, A., Sebastia, M. T., et al. (2007)

Evenness drives consistent diversity effects in intensive

grassland systems across 28 European sites. Journal of

Ecology,95, 530–9.

Kleijn, D. and Sutherland, W. J. (2003) How effective are

European agri-environment schemes in conserving and

promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology,40,

947–69.

Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., et al. (2006) Mixed

biodiversity beneﬁts of agri-environment schemes in

ﬁve European countries. Ecology Letters,9, 243–54.

Klein, A. M., Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and

Buchori, D. (2002) Effects of land-use intensity in tropi-

cal agroforestry systems on coffee flower-visiting and

REFERENCES 325

trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conservation Biology,16,

1003–14.

Klein, A. M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharntke, T.

(2003a). Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the

diversity of pollinating bees. Proceedings of the Royal

Society, Series B,270, 955–61.

Klein, A. M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharntke, T.

(2003b) Pollination of Coffea canephora in relation to local

and regional agroforestry management. Journal of

Applied Ecology,40, 837–45.

Klein, A. M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharntke, T.

(2006) Rain forest promotes trophic interactions and

diversity of trap-nesting hymenoptera in adjacent

agroforestry. Journal of Animal Ecology,75, 315–23.

Klein, A. M., Vaissière, B. E., Cane, J. H., et al. (2007)

Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for

world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B,274,

303–13.

Klein, A. M., Cunningham, S., Bos, M., and Steffan-

Dewenter, I. (2008) Advances in pollination ecology

from tropical plantation crops. Ecology,89, 935–43.

Kloeppel, B. D. and Abrams, M. D. (1995) Ecophysiological

attributes of the native Acer-Saccharum and the exotic

Acer-Platanoides in urban oak forests in Pennsylvania,

USA. Tree Physiology,15, 739–46.

Knohl, A., Kolle, O., Minayeva, T. Y., et al. (2002) Carbon

dioxide exchange of a Russian boreal forest after distur-

bance by wind throw. Global Change Biology,8,231–46.

Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D., Haddad, N. M., et al. (1999)

Effects of plant species richness on invasions dynamics,

disease outbreaks, insect abundances, and diversity.

Ecology Letters,2, 286–93.

Knowler, D. (2002) A review of selected bioeconomic

models with environmental influences in fisheries.

Journal of Bioeconomics,4, 163–81.

Knowler, D. and Barbier, E. (2005) Importing exotic plants

and the risk of invasion: are market-based instruments

adequate? Ecological Economics,52, 341–54.

Koenig W. D. (1999) Spatial autocorrelation of ecological

phenomena. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,14,22–6.

Kohn, R. E. and Capen, D. (2002) Optimal volume of

environmentally damaging trade. Scottish Journal of

Political Economy,49,22–38.

Kokkoris, G. D., Troumbis, A. Y., and Lawton, J. L. (1999)

Patterns of species interaction strength in assembled the-

oretical competition communities. Ecology Letters,2,70–4.

Kolar, C. S. and Lodge, D. M. (2001) Progress in invasion

biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology & Evolu-

tion,16, 199–204.

Kolar, C. S. and Lodge, D. M. (2002) Ecological predictions

and risk assessment for alien fishes in North America.

Science,298, 1233–6.

Kolasa, J. and Li, B. (2003) Removing the confounding

effect of habitat specialization reveals the stabilizing

contribution of diversity to species variability. Proceed-

ings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,270,

S198–S201.

Kondo, T. and Tsuyuzaki, S. (1999) Natural regeneration

patterns of the introduced larch, Larix kaempferi (Pina-

ceae), on the volcano Mount Koma, northern Japan.

Diversity and Distributions,5, 223–33.

Kondoh, M. (2003) Foraging adaptation and the relation-

ship between food-web complexity and stability. Science,

299, 1388–91.

Kondoh, M. (2006) Does foraging adaptation create the

positive complexity–stability relationship in realistic

food-web structure? Journal of Theoretical Biology,238,

646–51.

Koo, B. and Wright, B. D. (1999) The role of biodiversity

products as incentives for conserving biological diver-

sity: some instructive examples. The Science of the Total

Environment,240,21–30.

Kopp, K. and Jokela, J. (2007) Resistant invaders can con-

vey benefits to native species. Oikos,116, 295–301.

Korhonen, K. P. C., Karjalainen, R., and Stenlid, J. (1998)

Distribution of Heterobasidion annosum intersterility

groups in Europe. In R. Karjalainen, R. and A. Hüttermann

(eds.) Heterobasidion annosum. Biology, Ecology, Impact and

Control. CABI, Willinford.

Koricheva, J., Mulder, C. P. H., Schmid, B., Joshi, J., and

Huss-Danell, K. (2000) Numerical responses of different

trophic groups of invertebrates to manipulations of

plant diversity in grasslands. Oecologia,125, 271–82.

Koricheva, J., Vehvilaäinen, H., Riihimaki, J., Ruohomaki, K.,

Kaitaniemi, P., and Ranta, H.(2006) Diversification of tree

stands as a means to manage pests and diseases in boreal

forests: Myth or reality? Canadian Journal of Forest Research,

36,324–36.

Körner, C. (2003) Slow in, rapid out –carbon flux studies

and Kyoto targets. Science,300, 1242–3.

Körner, C. (2004) Through enhanced tree dynamics carbon

dioxide enrichment may cause tropical forests to lose

carbon. Proceedings of the Royal Society LondonB,359,493–8.

Körner, C. (2005) An introduction to the functional diver-

sity of temperate forest trees. In M. Scherer-Lorenzen,

C. Körner, and E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The Functional

Significance of Forest Diversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Korthals, G. W., Smilauer, P., Van Dijk, C., and Van der

Putten, W. H. (2001) Linking above- and below-ground

biodiversity: abundance and trophic complexity in soil

as a response to experimental plant communities on

abandoned arable land. Functional Ecology,15, 506–14.

Kotanen, P. M. (1997) Effects of experimental soil distur-

bance on revegetation by natives and exotics in coastal

326 REFERENCES

Californian meadows. Journal of Applied Ecology,34,

631–44.

Kotiaho, J. S., Kaitala, V., Komonen, A., and Paivinen, J.

(2005) Predicting the risk of extinction from shared

ecological characteristics. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA,102, 1963–7.

Kowalchuk, G. A., Buma, D. S., de Boer, W.,

Klinkhamer, P. G. L., and van Veen, J. A. (2002) Effects

of above-ground plant species composition and diver-

sity on the diversity of soil-borne microorganisms.

Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General

and Molecular Microbiology,81, 509–20.

Kraaij, T. and Ward, D. (2006) Effects of rain, nitrogen, fire

and grazing on tree recruitment and early survival in

bush-encroached savanna, South Africa. Plant Ecology,

186, 235–46.

Krab, E. J., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lang, S. I., and van

Logtestijn, R. S. P. (2008) Amino acid uptake among

wide-ranging moss species may contribute to their

strong position in higher-latitude ecosystems. Plant and

Soil,304, 199–208.

Kraus, B. and Page, R. E., Jr. (1995) Effect of Varroa jacob-

soni (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) on feral Apis mellifera

(Hymenoptera: Apidae) in California. Environmental

Entomology,24, 1473–80.

Krebs, C. J. (1972) Ecology: the Experimental Analysis of

Distribution and Abundance. Harper & Row, New York.

Krebs, C. J. (2001) Ecology: the Experimental Analysis of

Distribution and Abundance, 5th edn. Benjamin Cummings,

San Francisco.

Kremen, C. (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do

we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters,8,

468–79.

Kremen, C. and Chaplin-Kramer, B. (2007) Insects as pro-

viders of ecosystem services: crop pollination and pest

control. In A. J. A. Stewart, T. R. New, and O. T. Lewis

(eds.) Insect Conservation Biology, pp. 349–83. 23rd Sym-

posium of the Proceedings of the Royal Entomological

Society.

Kremen, C., Niles, J., Dalton, M., et al. (2000) Economic

incentives for rain forest conservation across scales.

Science,288, 1828–32.

Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., and Thorp, R. W. (2002) Crop

pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural

intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the USA,99, 16812–16.

Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Bugg, R. L., Fay, J. P., and

Thorp, R. W. (2004) The area requirements of an eco-

system service: crop pollination by native bee commu-

nities in California. Ecology Letters,7, 1109–19.

Kremen,C.,Williams,N.M.,Aizen,M.A.,et al. (2007)

Pollination and other ecosystem services produced

by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for

the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters,10,

299–314.

Kruess, A. and Tscharntke, T. (1994) Habitat fragmenta-

tion, species loss, and biological control. Science,264,

1581–4.

Kruger, O. and Radford, A. N. (2008) Doomed to die?

Predicting extinction risk in the true hawks Accipitridae.

Animal Conservation,11,83–91.

Krutilla, J. V. (1967) Conservation reconsidered. The

American Economic Review 57(4), 777–86.

Laakso, J. and Setälä, H. (1999) Sensitivity of primary

production to changes in the architecture of below-

ground food webs. Oikos,87,57–64.

Lafferty, K. D., Dobson, A. P., and Kuris, A. M. (2006)

Parasites dominate food web links. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,103, 11211–16.

Laidre, K. L., Stirling, I., Lowry, L. F., Wiig, O., Heide-

Jorgensen, M. P., and Ferguson, S. H. (2008) Quantifying

the sensitivity of Arctic marine mammals to climate-

induced habitat change. Ecological Applications,18,

S97–S125.

Lal, R. (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global

climate change and food security. Science,304, 1623–7.

Lal, R. (2005) Soil carbon sequestration in natural and

managed tropical forest ecosystems. Journal of Sustain-

able Forestry,21,1–30.

Laland, K. N. and Sterelny, K. (2006) Perspective: seven

reasons not to neglect niche construction. Evolution,60,

1751–62.

Lambin, E. F., Geist, H. J., and Lepers, E. (2003) Dynamics

of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions.

Annual Review of Environment and Resources,28, 205–41.

Landsberg, J. (1999) Response and effect –different rea-

sons for classifying plant functional types under graz-

ing. In Eldridge, D. and Freudenberger, D. (eds.) People

and Rangelands: Building the Future. Proceedings of the

VIth International Rangeland Congress, Aitkenvale,

Queensland.

Landsberg, J., Lavorel, S., and Stol, J. (1999) Grazing

response groups among understorey plants in arid

rangelands. Journal of Vegetation Science,10, 683–96.

Larsen, T. H., Williams, N. M., and Kremen, C. (2005)

Extinction order and altered community structure rapidly

disrupt ecosystem functioning. Ecology Letters,8,538–47.

Larson, D. L., Royer, R. A., and Royer, M. R. (2006) Insect

visitation and pollen deposition in an invaded prairie

plant community. Biological Conservation,130, 148–59.

Laughlin, D. C. (2003) Lack of native propagules in a

Pennsylvania, USA, limestone prairie seed bank: futile

hopes for a role in ecological restoration. Natural Areas

Journal,23, 158–64.

REFERENCES 327

Laurance, W. F. (1991) Ecological correlates of extinction

proneness in Australian tropical rain-forest mammals.

Conservation Biology,5,79–89.

Laurance, W. F. (2000) Edge effects and ecological pro-

cesses: are they on the same scale? Reply. Trends in

Ecology & Evolution,15, 373.

Laurance, W. F., Laurance, S. G., Ferreira, L. V., Rankin-de

Merona, J. M., Gascon, C., and Lovejoy, T. E. (1997)

Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Sci-

ence,278, 1117–18.

Laurance, W. F., Nascimento, H. E. M., Laurance, S. G.,

et al. (2006) Rain forest fragmentation and the prolifer-

ation of successional trees. Ecology,87, 469–82.

Lavergne, S., Garnier, E., and Debussche, M. (2003) Do

rock endemic and widespread plant species differ under

the Leaf–Height–Seed plant ecology strategy scheme?

Ecology Letters,6, 398–404.

Lavergne,S.,Thompson,J.D.,Garnier,E.,andDebussche,M.

(2004) The biology and ecology of narrow endemic and

widespread plants: a comparative study of trait variation

in 20 congeneric pairs. Oikos,107, 505–18.

Lavorel, S. and Garnier, E. (2001) Aardvarck to zyzyxia –

functional groups across kingdoms. New Phytologist,149,

360–3.

Lavorel, S. and Garnier, E. (2002) Predicting changes in

community composition and ecosystem functioning

from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional

Ecology,16, 545–56.

Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., McIntyre, S. et al. (2008) Assessing

functional diversity in the ﬁeld –methodology matters!

Functional Ecology,22, 134–47.

Lawlor, S. P., Armesto, J. J., and Kareiva, P. (2002) How

relevant to conservation are studies linking biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning? In A. P. Kinzig, S. W. Pacala, and

D. Tilman (eds.) The Functional Consequences of Biodiver-

sity, pp. 213–45. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Lawton, J. H. (1995) Ecological experiments with model

systems. Science,269, 328–31.

Lawton, J. H. (1996) The Ecotron facility at Silwood Park:

The value of “big bottle”experiments. Ecology,77, 665–9.

Lawton, J. H. and May, R. M. (1995) Extinction Rates.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lawton, J. H., Naeem, S., Woodfin, R. M., et al. (1993) The

Ecotron: a controlled environmental facility for the

investigation of populations and ecosystem processes.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B,

341, 181–94.

Layman, C. A., Langerhans, R. B., and Winemiller, K. O.

(2005) Body size, not other morphological traits, char-

acterizes cascading effects in fish assemblage composi-

tion following commercial netting. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,62, 2802–10.

Layton, D. F. and Levine, R. A. (2005) Bayesian approaches

to modeling stated preference data. In R. Scarpa and A.

Alberini (eds.), Applications of Simulation Methods in

Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 187–208.

Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.

Leach, M. K. and Givnish, T. J. (1996) Ecological determi-

nants of species loss in remnant prairies. Science,273,

1555–8.

Lecerf, A., Dobson, M., Dang, C. K., and Chauvet, E. (2005)

Riparian plant species loss alters trophic dynamics in

detritus-based stream ecosystems. Oecologia,146,

432–42.

Lecerf, A., Risnoveanu, G., Popescu, C., Gessner, M. O.,

and Chauvet, E. (2007) Decomposition of diverse litter

mixtures in streams. Ecology,88, 219–27.

Lee, M. T., Peet, R. K., Roberts, S. D., and Wentworth, T. R.

(2007) CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.

NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.

Lehman, C. L. and Tilman, D. (2000) Biodiversity, stability,

and productivity in competitive communities. American

Naturalist,156, 534–52.

Leibold, M. A. (1989) Resource edibility and the effects of

predators and productivity on the outcome of trophic

interactions. American Naturalist,134, 922–49.

Leibold, M. A. and Norberg, J. (2004) Biodiversity in

metacommunities: plankton as complex adaptive sys-

tems? Limonology and Oceanography,49, 1278–89.

Leibold, M. A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P.,

Chase, J. M., Hoopes, M. F., Holt, R. D., Shurin, J. B.,

Law, R., Tilman, D., Loreau, M., and Gonzalez, A. (2004)

The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-

scale community ecology. Ecology Letters,7,601–13.

Lenoir, J., Gegout, J. C., Marquet, P. A., de Ruffray, P., and

Brisse, H. (2008) A significant upward shift in plant

species optimum elevation during the 20th century.

Science,320, 1768–71.

Lep

s, J. (2004) What do the biodiversity experiments tell us

about consequences of plant species loss in the real

world? Basic and Applied Ecology,5, 529–34.

Lep

s, J., Osbornovakosinova, J., and Rejmanek, M. (1982)

Community stability, complexity and species life-history

strategies. Vegetatio,50,53–63.

Lep

s, J., Brown, V. K., Diaz Len, T. A., et al. (2001) Sepa-

rating the chance effect from other diversity effects in the

functioning of plant communities. Oikos,92, 123–34.

Lep

s, J., de Bello, F., Lavorel, S. and Berman, S. (2006)

Quantifying and interpreting functional diversity of

natural communities: practical considerations matter.

Preslia,78, 481–501.

Leung, B., Lodge, D. M., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J. F.,

Lewis, M. A., and Lamberti, G. (2002) An ounce of

prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis

328 REFERENCES

of invasive species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of

London Series B: Biological Sciences,269, 2407–13.

Levine, J. M. (2000) Species diversity and biological

invasions: relating local process to community pattern.

Science,288, 852–4.

Levine, J. M. and D’Antonio, C. M. (1999) Elton revisited: a

review of evidence linking diversity and invisibility.

Oikos,87,15–26.

Levine, J. M., Vila, M., D’Antonio, C. M., Dukes, J. S.,

Grigulis, K., and Lavorel, S. (2003) Mechanisms under-

lying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proceedings of

the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,

270, 775–81.

Levinson, A. (1996) Environmental regulations and

industry location: international and domestic evidence.

In J. Bhagwati and R. Hudec (eds.) Fair Trade and

Harmonization: Prerequisites for Free Trade?, Vol. 1,

pp. 429–57. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Liebman, M. and Staver, C. P. (2001) Crop diversification

for weed management. In M. Liebman, C. L. Mohler,

and C. P. Staver (eds.) Ecological Management of Agri-

cultural Weeds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Limburg, K. and Folke, C. (1999) The ecology of ecosystem

services: introduction to the special issue. Ecological

Economics,29, 179–82.

Lindberg, K. A. (2001) Economic impacts. In D. Weaver

(ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, pp. 363–77. CABI,

Wallingford.

Lindberg, N., Engtsson, J. B., and Persson, T. (2002) Effects

of experimental irrigation and drought on the compo-

sition and diversity of soil fauna in a coniferous stand.

Journal of Applied Ecology,39, 924–36.

Lips, K. R., Reeve, J. D., and Witters, L. R. (2003) Eco-

logical traits predicting amphibian population

declines in Central America. Conservation Biology,17,

1078–88.

Lloret, F. and Vila, M. (2003) Diversity patterns of plant

functional types in relation to fire regime and previous

land use in mediterranean woodlands. Journal of Vege-

tation Science,14, 387–98.

Lloret, F., Medail, F., Brundu, G., and Hulme, P. E. (2004)

Local and regional abundance of exotic plant species on

Mediterranean islands: are species traits important?

Global Ecology and Biogeography,13,37–45.

Lloret, F., Penuelas, J., and Estiarte, M. (2005) Effects of

vegetation canopy and climate on seedling establish-

ment in Mediterranean shrubland. Journal of Vegetation

Science,16,67–76.

Lodge, D. M. (1993) Biological invasions –lessons for

ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,8, 133–7.

LoGiudice, K., Ostfeld, R. S., Schmidt, K. A., and Keesing, F.

(2003) The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host

diversity and community composition on Lyme disease

risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

USA,100,567–71.

LoGiudice, K., Duerr, S., Newhouse, M., Schmidt,

K. A., Killilea, M., and Ostfeld R. S. (2008). Impact of

community composition on Lyme disease risk. Ecology

89,2841–2849

Lomolino, M. V. and Heaney, L. R. (eds.) (2004) Frontiers of

Biogeography, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.

Long, Z. T., Steiner, C. F., Krumins, J. A., and Morin, P. J.

(2006) Species richness and allometric scaling jointly

determine biomass in model aquatic food webs. Journal

of Animal Ecology,75, 1014–23.

Lopezaraiza-Mikel, M. E., Hayes, R. B., Whalley, M. R.,

and Memmott, J. (2007) The impact of an alien plant on a

native plant–pollinator network: an experimental

approach. Ecology Letters,10, 539–50.

Loranger, G., Ponge, J. F., Blanchart, E., and Lavelle, P.

(1998) Influence of agricultural practices on arthropod

communities in a vertisol (Martinique). European Journal

of Soil Biology,34, 157–65.

Loreau, M. (1994) Material cycling and stability in eco-

systems. American Naturalist,143, 508–13.

Loreau, M. (1995) Consumers as maximizers of matter and

energy flow in ecosystems. AmericanNaturalist,145,22–42.

Loreau, M. (1998a) Biodiversity and ecosystem function-

ing: a mechanistic model. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA,95, 5632–6.

Loreau, M. (1998b) Separating sampling and other effects

in biodiversity experiments. Oikos,82, 600–2.

Loreau, M. (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:

recent theoretical advances. Oikos,91,3–17.

Loreau, M. (2001) Microbial diversity, producer–

decomposer interactions and ecosystem processes: a

theoretical model. Proceedings of the Royal Society London

B,268, 303–9.

Loreau, M. (2004) Does functional redundancy exist?

Oikos,104, 606–11.

Loreau, M. and Behera, N. (1999) Phenotypic diversity and

stability of ecosystem processes. Theoretical Population

Biology,56,29–47.

Loreau, M. and Hector, A. (2001) Partitioning selection and

complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature,

412,72–6.

Loreau, M. and Mouquet, N. (1999) Immigration and the

maintenance of local species diversity. American Natu-

ralist,154, 427–40.

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., et al. (2001) Biodi-

versity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge

and future challenges. Science,294, 804–8.

Loreau, M., Downing, A., Emmerson, M., Gonzalez, A.,

Hughes, J., Inchausti, P., Joshi, J., Norberg, J., and Sala, O.

REFERENCES 329

(2002) A new look at the relationship between diversity

and stability. In M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti

(eds.) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis

and Perspectives, pp. 79–91. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., and Inchausti, P. (eds.) (2002c)

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and

Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., and Holt, R. D. (2003a) Meta-

ecosystems: a theoretical framework for spatial ecosys-

tem ecology. Ecology Letters,6, 673–9.

Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., and Gonzalez, A. (2003b) Bio-

diversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous land-

scapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the USA,100, 12765–70.

Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Arroyo, M. T. K., et al.

(2006) Diversity without representation. Nature,442,

245–6.

Lortie, C. J. and Aarsen, L. W. (1999) The advantage of

being tall: higher flowers receive more pollen in Ver-

bascum thapsus (Scrophulariaceae). Ecoscience,6,68–71.

Losey, J. E. and Denno, R. F. (1998) Positive predator–-

predator interactions: enhanced predation rates and

synergistic suppression of aphid populations. Ecology,

79, 2143–52.

Losey, J. E. and Vaughan, M. (2006) The economic value of

ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience,56,

311–23.

Lovell, S. T. and Sullivan, W. C. (2006) Environmental

benefits of conservation buffers in the United States:

Evidence, promise, and open questions. Agriculture

Ecosystems & Environment,112, 249–60.

Lubchenco, J., Olson, A. M., Brubaker, L. B., et al. (1991)

The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological

research agenda. Ecology,72, 371–412.

Luyssaert, S., Schulze, E.-D., Borner, A., et al. (2008) Old-

growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature,455,

213–15.

Lynam, T., De Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., and

Evans, K. (2007) A review of tools for incorporating

community knowledge, preferences, and values into

decision making in natural resources management.

Ecology and Society,12,5.

Lynch, J. M., Benedetti, A., Insam, H., et al. (2004) Micro-

bial diversity in soil: ecological theories, the contribution

of molecular techniques and the impact of transgenic

plants and transgenic microorganisms. Biology and Fer-

tility of Soils,40, 363–85.

Lynne, G. D., Conroy, P., and Prochaska, F. J. (1981) Eco-

nomic valuation of marsh areas for marine production

processes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Man-

agement,8(2), 175–86.

Lyons, K. G. and Schwartz, M. W. (2001) Rare species loss

alters ecosystem function –invasion resistance. Ecology

Letters,4, 358–65.

Macarthur, R. (1955) Fluctuations of animal populations,

and a measure of community stability. Ecology,36, 533–6.

MacArthur, R. H. (1972) Geographical Ecology. Princeton

University Press, Princeton, NJ.

MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. (1967) The Theory

of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, NJ.

Macdougall, A. S. and Turkington, R. (2005) Are invasive

species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded

ecosystems? Ecology,86,42–55.

Madin, J., Bowers, S., Schildhauer, M., Krivov, S., Pen-

nington, D., and Villa, F. (2007) An ontology for

describing and synthesizing ecological observation data.

Ecological Informatics,2, 279–96.

Madin, J. S., Bowers, S., Schildhauer, M. P., and Jones, M.

B. (2008) Advancing ecological research with ontologies.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution,23, 159–68.

Madritch, M. D. and Hunter, M. D. (2002) Phenotypic

diversity influences ecosystem functioning in an oak

sandhills community. Ecology,83, 2084–90.

Madritch, M. D. and Hunter, M. D. (2004) Phenotypic

diversity and litter chemistry affect nutrient dynamics

during litter decomposition in a two species mix. Oikos,

105, 125–31.

Madritch, M. D. and Hunter, M. D. (2005) Phenotypic

variation in oak litter influences short- and long-term

nutrient cycling through litter chemistry. Soil Biology and

Biochemistry,37, 319–27.

Madritch, M., Donaldson, J., and Lindroth, R. (2006)

Genetic identity of populus tremuloides litter influences

decomposition and nutrient release in a mixed forest

stand. Ecosystems,9, 528–37.

Maherali, H. and Klironomos, J. N. (2007) Influence of

phylogeny on fungal community assembly and ecosys-

tem functioning. Science,316, 1746.

Maille, P. and Mendelsohn, R. (1993) Valuing ecotourism

in Madagascar. Journal of Environmental Management,38,

213–18.

Mangel, M. and Hilborn, R. (1997) The Ecological Detective.

Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Marba, N., Duarte, C. M., and Agusti, S. (2007) Allometric

scaling of plant life history. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the USA,104, 15777–80.

Marquez, C. O., Cambardella, C. A., Isenhart, T. M., and

Schultz, R. C. (1999) Assessing soil quality in a riparian

buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central

Iowa, USA. Agroforestry Systems,44, 133–40.

Martinez, N. D. (1992) Constant connectance in commu-

nity food webs. American Naturalist,139, 1208–18.

330 REFERENCES

Martiny, J. B. H., Bohannan, B. J. M., Brown, J. H.,

Colwell, R. K., Fuhrman, J. A., Green, J. L., Horner-

Devine, M. C., Kane, M., Krumins, J. A., Kuske, C. R.,

Morin, P. J., Naeem, S., Ovreas, L., Reysenbach, A. L.,

Smith, V. H., and Staley, J. T. (2006) Microbial bioge-

ography: putting microorganisms on the map. Nature

Reviews Microbiology,4, 102–12.

Mason, N. W. H., MacGillivray, K., Steel, J. B., and

Wilson, J. B. (2003) An index of functional diversity.

Journal of Vegetation Science,14,571–8.

Mason, N. W. H., Irz, P., Lanoiselee, C., Mouillot, D., and

Argillier, C. (2008) Evidence that niche specialization

explains species–energy relationships in lake fish

communities. JournalofAnimalEcology,77,285–96.

Mason, N. W. H., Lanoiselee, C., Mouillot, D., Irz, P., and

Argillier, C. (2007) Functional characters combined with

null models reveal inconsistency in mechanisms of

species turnover in lacustrine fish communities. Oecolo-

gia,153, 441–52.

Mason, N. W. H., Mouillot, D., Lee, W. G., and Wilson, J. B.

(2005) Functional richness, functional evenness and

functional divergence: the primary components of func-

tional diversity. Oikos,111,112–18.

Mason, W. K., Lamb, K., and Russell, B. (2003) The sus-

tainable grazing systems program: new solutions for

livestock producers. Australian Journal of Experimental

Agriculture,43, 663–72.

Massel, S. R., Furukawa, K., and Brinkman, R. M. (1999)

Surface wave propagation data in mangrove forests.

Fluid Dynamics Research,24, 219–49.

Matamala, R., Gonzalez-Meler, M. A., Jastrow, J. D.,

Norby, R. J., and Schlesinger, W. H. (2003) Impacts of

fine root turnover on forest NPP and soil C sequestra-

tion potential. Science,302, 1385–7.

Matete, M. and Hassan, R. (2006) Integrated ecological

economics accounting approach to evaluation of inter-

basin water transfers: an application to the Lesotho

Highlands Water Project. Ecological Economics,60(1),

246–59.

Matson, P. A. and Vitousek, P. M. (2006) Agricultural

intensification: will land spared from farming be land

spared for nature? Conservation Biology,20,709–10.

Matthews, D. P. and Gonzalez, A. (2007) The inflationary

effects of environmental fluctuations ensure the persis-

tence of sink metapopulations. Ecology,88, 2848–56.

Matthiessen, B. and Hillebrand, H. (2005) Dispersal fre-

quency affects local biomass production by controlling

local diversity. Ecology Letters,9, 652–62.

May, R. M. (1972a) Stability and Complexity in Model Eco-

systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

May, R. M. (1972b) Will a large complex system be stable?

Nature,238, 413–14.

May, R. M. (1974) Stability and Complexity in Model

Ecosystems, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press,

Princeton.

May, R. M. (2006) Network structure and the biology

of populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,21,

394–9.

Mazda, Y., Wolanski, E., King, B., Sase, A., Ohtsuka, D.,

and Magi, M. (1997) Drag force due to vegetation in

mangrove swamps: Mangroves and Salt Marshes,1,

193–9.

McAusland, C. and Costello, C. (2004) Avoiding invasives:

trade related policies for controlling unintentional exotic

species introductions. Journal of Environmental Economics

and Management,48, 954–77.

McCann, K. S. (2000) The diversity–stability debate.

Nature,405, 228–33.

McCann, K., Hastings, A., and Huxel, G. R. (1998) Weak

trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature,

395, 794–7.

McCann, K. S., Rasmussen, J. B., and Umbanhowar, J.

(2005) The dynamics of spatially coupled food webs.

Ecology Letters,8, 513–23.

McCrea, A. R., Trueman, I. C., and Fullen, M. A. (2004)

Factors relating to soil fertility and species diversity in

both semi-natural and created meadows in the West

Midlands of England. European Journal of Soil Science,55,

335–48.

McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. (1989) Generalized Linear

Models, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London.

McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E., and Westoby, M.

(2006) Rebuilding community ecology from functional

traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,21,178–85.

McGrady-Steed, J. and Morin, P. (2000) Biodiversity,

density compensation, and the dynamics of populations

and functional groups. Ecology,81, 361–73.

McGrady-Steed, J., Harris, P. M., and Morin, P. J. (1997)

Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature,

390, 162–5.

McGregor, S. E. (1976) Insect pollination of cultivated crop-

plants. U.S.D.A. Agriculture Handbook No. 496,93–8.

McIntyre, S. and Lavorel, S. (1994) How environmental

and disturbance factors influence species composition in

temperate Australian grasslands. Journal of Vegetation

Science,5, 373–84.

McIntyre, P. B., Jones, L. E., Flecker, A. S., and Vanni, M. J.

(2007) Fish extinctions alter nutrient recycling in tropical

freshwaters. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the USA,104, 4461–6.

McKinney, M. L. (1997) Extinction vulnerability and

selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological

views. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,28,

495–516.

REFERENCES 331

McKinney, M. L. (2004) Measuring floristic homogeniza-

tion by non-native plants in North America. Global

Ecology and Biogeography,13,47–53.

McLaughlin, A. and Mineau, P. (1995) The impact of

agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture Eco-

systems & Environment,55, 201–12.

McNaughton, S. J. (1977) Diversity and stability of eco-

logical communities: a comment on the role of empiri-

cism in ecology. American Naturalist,111, 515–25.

McNaughton, S. J. (1993) Biodiversity and function of

grazing ecosystems. In E.-D. Shulze and H. A. Mooney

(eds.) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function, pp. 362–83.

Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

McNeely, J. A. (1994) Lessons from the past: forests and

biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation,3,3–20.

McNeely, J. A. and Scherr, S. J. (2003) Ecoagriculture:

Strategies to Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

MEA (2005) Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems

and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World

Resources Institute, Washington DC.

Meléndez-Ramirez, V., Magaña-Rueda S., Parra-Tabla, V.,

Azala, R., and Navarro, J. (2002) Diversity of native bee

visitors of cucurbit crops (Cucurbitaceae) in Yucatán,

México. Journal of Insect Conservation,6, 135–47.

Mellinger, M. V. and McNaughton, S. J. (1975) Structure

and function of successional vascular plant communi-

ties in central New York. Ecological Monographs,45,

161–82.

Memmott, J. (1999) The structure of plant–pollinator food

webs. Ecology Letters,2, 276–80.

Memmott, J. and Waser, N. M. (2002) Integration of alien

plants into native flower–pollinator visitation web.

Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, 269, 2395–9.

Memmott, J., Waser, N. M., and Price, M. V. (2004) Tol-

erance of pollination networks to species extinctions.

Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B,271, 2605–11.

Memmott, J., Craze, P. G., Waser, N. M., and Price, M. V.

(2007) Global warming and the disruption of plant–

pollinator interactions. Ecology Letters,10, 710–17.

Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. (2001)

Weed aboveground and seedbank community respon-

ses to agricultural management systems. Ecological

Applications,11, 1586–601.

Mendelsohn, R. and Balick, M. J. (1995) The value of

undiscovered pharmaceuticals in tropical forests. Eco-

nomic Botany,49, 223–38.

Menke, C. A. and Muir, P. S. (2004) Patterns and influences

of exotic species invasion into the grassland habitat of

the threatened plant Silene spaldingil.Natural Areas

Journal,24, 119–28.

Merila, J., Kruuk, L. E. B., and Sheldon, B. C. (2001) Cryptic

evolution in a wild bird population. Nature,412,76–9.

Merkl, N., Schultze-Kraft, R., and Infante, C. (2005)

Assessment of tropical grasses and legumes for phy-

toremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. Water,

Air and Soil Pollution,165, 195–209.

Merrifield, J. (1996) A market approach to conserving

biodiversity. Ecological Economics,16, 217–26.

Metrick, A. and Weitzman, M. L. (1996) Conflicts and

choices in biodiversity preservation. Journal of Economic

Perspectives,12,21–34.

Micheli, F. and Halpern, B. S. (2005) Low functional

redundancy in coastal marine assemblages. Ecology Let-

ters,8, 391–400.

Michener, R. and Tighe, C. (1992) A Poisson regression

model of highway fatalities, American Economic Review,

82(2), 452–6.

Mikkelson, G. M. (1993) How do food webs fall apart? –a

study of changes in trophic structure during relaxation

on habitat fragments. Oikos,67, 539–47.

Mikola, J. and Setälä, H. (1998) Relating species diversity to

ecosystem functioning: mechanistic backgrounds and

experimental approach with a decomposer food web.

Oikos,83.

Milcu, A., Partsch, S., Langel, R., and Scheu, S. (2006) The

response of decomposers (earthworms, springtails and

microorganisms) to variations in species and functional

group diversity of plants. Oikos,112, 513–24.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and

Human Well-Being: a Framework for Assessment. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a). Ecosystems and

Human Well-Being. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b). Ecosystems and

Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis Report. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005c). Ecosystems

and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends: Find-

ings of the Condition and Trends Working Group (Millen-

nium Ecosystem Assessment Series), Island Press,

Washington, DC.

Miller, T. E. and Werner, P. A. (1987) Competitive effects

and responses between plant species in a first-year old-

field community. Ecology,68, 1201–10.

Mills, D. E. (1980) Transferable development rights mar-

kets. Journal of Urban Economics,7,63–74.

Mills, L. S., Soule, M. E., and Doak, D. F. (1993) The key-

stone-species concept in ecology and conservation. Bio-

Science,43, 219–24.

Minns, A., Finn, J., Hector, A., et al. (2001) The functioning

of European grassland ecosystems: potential beneﬁts of

332 REFERENCES

biodiversity to agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture,30,

179–85.

Mitchell, C. A., Reich, P. B., Tilman, D., and Groth, J. V.

(2003) Effects of elevated CO

, nitrogen deposition, and

decreased species diversity on foliar fungal plant dis-

ease. Global Change Biology,9, 438–51.

Mitchell, C. A., Tilman, D., and Groth, J. V. (2002) Effects of

grassland plant species diversity, abundance, and com-

position on foliar fungal disease. Ecology,83,1713–26.

Mitchell, C. E. and Power, A. G. (2003) Release of invasive

plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature,421,

625–7.

Mitchell, J. E., Ffolliott, P. F., and Patton-Mallory, M. (2005)

Back to the future: Forest Service rangeland research

and management. Rangelands,27,19–28.

Mitsch, W. J. (1993) Ecological engineering –a cooperative

role with the planetary life-support-system. Environ-

mental Science & Technology,27, 438–45.

Moeltner, K., Boyle, K. J., and Paterson, R. W. (2007) Meta-

analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation,

addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,53,

250–69.

Moen, J., Aune, K., Edenius, L., and Angerbjorn, A. (2004)

Potential effects of climate change on treeline position in

the Swedish mountains. Ecology and Society,9.

Moles, A. T., Ackerly, D. D., Webb, C. O., Tweddle, J. C.,

Dickie, J. B., and Westoby, M. (2005) A brief history of

seed size. Science,307, 576–80.

Moller, D. A. (2004) Facilitative interactions among plants

via shared pollinators. Ecology,85, 3289–301.

Molyneux, D., Ostfeld, R. S., Bernstein, A., and Chivian, E.

(2008) Ecosystem disturbance, biodiversity loss, and

human infectious disease. In E. Chivian and A. Bernstein

(eds.) Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on

Biodiversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Montagnini, F., Cusack, D., Petit, B., and Kanninen, M.

(2005) Environmental services of native tree plantations

and agroforestry systems in Central America. Journal of

Sustainable Forestry,21,51–67.

Montoya, J. M. and Sole, R. V. (2003) Topological prop-

erties of food webs: from real data to community

assembly models. Oikos,102, 614–22.

Montoya, J. M., Pimm, S. L., and Solé, R. V. (2006) Eco-

logical networks and their fragility. Nature,442, 259–64.

Mooney H. A. (2002) The debate on the role of biodiversity

in ecosystem functioning. In M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and

P. Inchausti (eds.) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning.

Synthesis and Perspectives, pp. 12–17. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Mooney, H. A., Cooper, A., and Reid, W. (2005) Con-

fronting the human dilemma. Science,434, 561–2.

Moragues, E. and Traveset, A. (2005) Effect of Carpobrotus

spp. on the pollination success of native plant species of

the Balearic Islands. Biological Conservation,122, 611–19.

Morales, C. L. and Aizen, M. A. (2006) Invasive mutual-

isms and the structure of plant–pollinator interactions in

the temperate forests of north-west Patagonia, Argen-

tina. Journal of Ecology,94, 171–80.

Moretti, M., Duelli, P., and Obrist, M. K. (2006) Biodiver-

sity and resilience of arthropod communities after fire

disturbance in temperate forests. Oecologia,149, 312–27.

Morin, P. J. and McGrady-Steed, J. (2004) Biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning in aquatic microbial systems: a

new analysis of temporal variation and species

richness–predictability relations. Oikos,104, 458–66.

Morin, X. and Chuine, I. (2006) Niche breadth, competitive

strength and range size of tree species: a trade-off based

framework to understand species distribution. Ecology

Letters,9, 185–95.

Morris, S. E. (1995) Geomorphic aspects of stream-channel

restoration. Physical Geography,16.

Morris, W. (2003) Which mutualists are most essential?

Buffering of plant reproduction against the extinction of

pollinators. In P. Kareiva and S. A. Levin (eds.) The

Importance of Species: Perspectives on Expendability and

Triage, pp. 260–80. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Shimabukuro, Y. E., et al.

(2006) Cropland expansion changes deforestation

dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,103,

14637–41.

Mouchet, M., Guilhaumon, F., Villeger, S., Mason, N. W. H.,

Tomasini, J.-A., and Mouillot, D. (2008) Towards a con-

sensus for calculating dendrogram-based functional

diversity indices. Oikos,117,794–800.

Mouillot, D., Mason, N. W. H., Dumay, O. and Wilson, J. B.

(2005a). Functional regularity: a neglected aspect of

functional diversity. Oecologia,142,353–9.

Mouillot, D., Laune, J., Tomasini, J. A., et al. (2005b).

Assessment of coastal lagoon quality with taxonomic

diversity indices of ﬁsh, zoobenthos and macrophyte

communities. Hydrobiologia,550, 121–30.

Mouillot, D., Stubbs, W., Faure, M., et al. (2005c). Niche

overlap estimates based on quantitative functional traits:

a new family of non-parametric indices. Oecologia,145,

345–53.

Mouillot, D., Spatharis, S., Reizopoulou, S., et al. (2006)

Alternatives to taxonomic-based approaches to assess

changes in transitional water communities. Aquatic

Conservation–Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,16,

469–82.

Mouillot, D., Dumay, O., and Tomasini, J. A. (2007) Lim-

iting similarity, niche filtering and functional diversity

REFERENCES 333

in coastal lagoon fish communities. Estuarine Coastal and

Shelf Science,71, 443–56.

Mouquet, N. and Loreau, M. (2002) Coexistence in meta-

communities: the regional similarity hypothesis. Amer-

ican Naturalist, 159, 420–6.

Mouquet, N. and Loreau, M. (2003) Community patterns

in source–sink metacommunities. American Naturalist,

162, 544–57.

Mouquet, N., Moore, J. L., and Loreau, M. (2002) Plant

species richness and community productivity: why the

mechanism that promotes coexistence matters. Ecology

Letters,5,56–65.

Mouquet N., Hoopes M. F., and Amarasekare, P. (2005)

The world is patchy and heterogeneous! Trade-off and

source sink dynamics in competitive metacommunities.

In M. Holyoak, M. A. Leibold, and R. Holt (eds.) Meta-

communities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities.

Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Mrozek, J. R. and Taylor, L. O. (2002) What determines the

value of life? A meta-analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis

and Management,21, 253–70.

Mueller, S. C. (1999) Tons of value in a pound of seed.

Proceedings of the 29th California alfalfa Symposium,

pp. 76–81. Available online at http://alfalfa.ucdavis.

edu/-ﬁles/pdf/2001NAAICSymposiumAbstracts.pdf

Mulder, C. P. H., Koricheva, J., Huss-Danell, K., Högberg,

P., and Joshi, J. (1999) Insects affect relationships

between plant species richness and ecosystem processes.

Ecology Letters,2, 237–46.

Mulder, C. P. H., Uliassi, D. D., and Doak, D. F. (2001)

Physical stress and diversity–productivity relationships:

the role of positive interactions. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,98, 6704–8.

Muller, T., Magid, J., Jensen, L. S., and Nielsen, N. E. (2003)

Decomposition of plant residues of different quality in

soil –DAISY model calibration and simulation based on

experimental data. Ecological Modelling,166,3–18.

Muotka, T. and Laasonen, P. (2002) Ecosystem recovery in

restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf

retention. Journal of Applied Ecology,39, 145–56.

Murray J. D. (2002) Mathematical Biology. Springer-Verlag,

New York.

Muth, M. K. and Thurman, W. N. (1995) Why support the

price of honey. Choices,10,19–22.

Muyzer, G. and Smalla, K. (1998) Application of denatur-

ing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and tempera-

ture gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE) in microbial

ecology. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of

General and Molecular Microbiology,73, 127–41.

Mwangi, P. N., Schmitz, M., Scherber, C., et al. (2007)

Niche pre-emption increases with species richness in

experimental plant communities. Journal of Ecology,95,

65–78.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., De

Fonesca, G. A., and Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots

for conservation priorities. Nature,403, 853–8.

Myers, R. A. and Worm, B. (2005) Extinction, survival or

recovery of large predatory fishes. Philosophical Trans-

actions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,360,

13–20.

Naelsund, B. and Norberg, J. (2006) Ecosystem con-

sequences of the regional species pool. Oikos,115,504–12.

Naeem, S. (1998) Species redundancy and ecosystem reli-

ability. Conservation Biology,12,39–45.

Naeem, S. (2000) Reply to Wardle et al. Bulletin of the

Ecological Society of America,81, 241–6.

Naeem, S. (2001a) Experimental validity and ecological

scale as tools for evaluating research programs. In

R. H. Gardner, W. M. Kemp, V. S. Kennedy, and

J. E. Petersen (eds.) Scaling Relationships in Experimental

Ecology. Columbia University Press, New York.

Naeem, S. (2001b) How changes in biodiversity may affect

the provision of ecosystem services. In V. C. Hollowell

(ed.) Managing Human Dominated Ecosystems. Missouri

Botanical Garden Press, St Louis.

Naeem, S. (2002a) Disentangling the impacts of diversity

on ecosystem functioning in combinatorial experiments.

Ecology,83, 2925–35.

Naeem, S. (2002b) Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity

loss: the evolution of a paradigm. Ecology,83, 1537–52.

Naeem, S. (2003) Models of ecosystem reliability and their

implications for species expendability. In P. Kareiva and

S. A. Levin (eds.) The Importance of Species: Perspectives on

Expendability and Triage. Princeton University Press,

Princeton.

Naeem, S. (2006a) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

in restored ecosystems: Extracting principals for a

synthetic perspective. In D. A. Falk, M. A. Palmer, and

J. B. Zedler (eds.) Foundations of Restoration Ecology: the

Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration. Island Press,

New York.

Naeem, S. (2006b) Expanding scales in biodiversity-based

research: challenges and solutions for marine systems.

Marine Ecology Progress Series,311, 273–83.

Naeem, S. (2008) Advancing realism in biodiversity

research. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,23, 414–16.

Naeem, S. and Li, S. (1997) Biodiversity enhances ecosys-

tem reliability. Nature,390, 507–9.

Naeem, S. and Li, S. (1998) Consumer species richness and

autotrophic biomass. Ecology,79, 2603–15.

Naeem, S. and Wright, J. P. (2003) Disentangling biodi-

versity effects on ecosystem functioning: Deriving

334 REFERENCES

solutions to a seemingly insurmountable problem.

Ecology Letters,6, 567–79.

Naeem, S., Thompson, L. J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H.,

and Woodfin, R. M. (1994) Declining biodiversity can

alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature,368, 734–7.

Naeem, S., Thompson, L. J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H.,

and Woodfin, R. M. (1995) Biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning: empirical evidence from experimental

microcosms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

of London B,347, 249–62.

Naeem, S., Haakenson, K., Thompson, L. J., Lawton, J. H.,

and Crawley, M. J. (1996) Biodiversity and plant pro-

ductivity in a model assemblage of plant species. Oikos,

76, 259–64.

Naeem, S., Byers, D., Tjossem, S. F., Bristow, C., and Li, S.

(1999a) Plant neighborhood diversity and production.

Ecoscience,6, 355–65.

Naeem, S., Chapin, F. S., et al. (1999b) Biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning: maintaining natural life support

processes. Ecological Society of America, Issues in Ecology

Series No. 4. 14pp.

Naeem, S., Hahn, D. R., and Schuurman, G. (2000)

Producer–decomposer co-dependency influences biodi-

versity effects. Nature,403, 762–4.

Naeem, S., Loreau, M., and Inchausti, P. (2002) Biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning: the emergence of a synthetic

ecological framework. In M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and

P. Inchausti (eds.) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning:

Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Naeem, S., Colwell, R., Díaz, S., et al. (2007) Predicting the

ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the bio-

merge framework. In J. G. Canadell, D. E. Pataki, and

L. F. Pitelka (eds.) Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing

World. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Nagel, J. M. and Griffin, K. L. (2001) Construction cost and

invasive potential: Comparing Lythrum salicaria

(Lythraceae) with co-occurring native species along

pond banks. American Journal of Botany,88, 2252–8.

National Research Council (2000) Our Common Journey: a

Transition Toward Sustainability. National Academy

Press, Washington, DC.

Navas, M. L. and Moreau-Richard, J. (2005) Can traits

predict the competitive response of herbaceous Medi-

terranean species? Acta Oecologica –International Journal

Of Ecology,27, 107–14.

Nee, S. and Stone, G. (2003) The end of the beginning for

neutral theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,18, 433–4.

Neutel, A. M., Heesterbeek, J. A. P., and de Ruiter, P. C.

(2002) Stability in real food webs: weak links in long

loops. Science,296, 1120–3.

Newman, M. E. J. (2003) The structure and function of

complex networks. SIAM Review,45, 167–256.

Newsome, A. E. and Noble, I. R. (1986) Ecological

and physiological characters of invading species. In R. H.

Groves and J. J. Burdon (eds.) Ecology of Biological Inva-

sions,pp.1–20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ni, J. (2003) Plant functional types and climate along a

precipitation gradient in temperate grasslands, north-

east China and south-east Mongolia. Journal of Arid

Environments,53, 501–16.

Niesten, E., Frumhoff, P., Manion, M., and Hardner, J.

(2002) Designing a carbon market that protects forests in

developing countries. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical, Physical

and Engineering Sciences,360, 1875–88.

Niles, J. O., Brown, S., Pretty, J., Ball, A. S., and Fay, J. (2002)

Potential carbon mitigation and income in developing

countries from changes in use and management of agri-

cultural and forest lands. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society of London Series A,360, 1621–39.

Nilsson, M. C. and Wardle, D. A. (2005) Understory

vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: evidence from

the northern Swedish boreal forest. Frontiers in Ecology

and the Environment,3, 421–8.

Norberg, J. (1999) Linking nature’s services to ecosystems:

some general ecological concepts. Ecological Economics

29, 183–202.

Norberg, J. (2000) Resource–niche complementarity and

autotrophic compensation determines ecosystem-level

responses to increased cladoceran species richness.

Oecologia,122, 264–72.

Norberg, J. (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:

a complex adaptive systems approach. Limnology and

Oceanography,49, 1269–77.

Norberg, J., Swaney, D. P., Dushoff, J., Lin, J., Casagrandi, R.,

and Levin, S. A. (2001) Phenotypic diversity and ecosys-

tem functioning in changing environments: a theoretical

framework. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the USA,98,11376–81.

Nordhaus, W. D. and Kokkelenberg, E. C. (eds.) (1999)

Nature’s Numbers. National Academy Press,

Washington, DC.

Nosil, P., Crespi, B. J., and Sandoval, C. P. (2002) Host–

plant adaptation drives the parallel evolution of repro-

ductive isolation. Nature,417, 440–3.

Noss, R. F. (2001) Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a

time of rapid climate change. Conservation Biology,15,

578–90.

NRC (2001) Compensating for Wetland Losses Under

the Clean Water Act. National Academy Press,

Washington, DC.

NRC, National Research Council of the National Acade-

mies (2007) Status of Pollinators in North America.

National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.

REFERENCES 335

Nunes, P. A. L. D. and van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2001)

Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?

Ecological Economics,39(2), 203–22.

Nupp, T. E. and Swihart, R. K. (1996) Effect of forest patch

area on population attributes of white-footed mice

(Peromyscus leucopus) in fragmented landscapes. Cana-

dian Journal of Zoology,74, 467–72.

O’Connor, N. E. and Crowe, T. P. (2005) Biodiversity loss

and ecosystem functioning: distinguishing between

number and identity of species. Ecology,86, 1783–96.

O’Connor, T. G., Haines, L. M., and Snyman, H. A. (2001)

Influence of precipitation and species composition on

phytomass of a semi-arid African grassland. The Journal

of Ecology,89, 850–60.

Odum, E. P. (1953) Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders,

Philadelphia.

Odum, E. P. (1969) The strategy of ecosystem develop-

ment. Science,164, 262–70.

OECD (2003) Agriculture and Biodiversity: Developing Indi-

cators for Policy Analysis (Summary and Recommendations).

OECD, Paris.

OECD (2004) Handbook of Market Creation for Biodiversity:

Issues in Implementation. OECD, Paris.

Oki, T. and Kanae, S. (2006) Global hydrological cycles and

world water resources. Science,313, 1068–72.

Olden, J. D., Hogan, Z. S., and Vander Zanden, M. J. (2007)

Small fish, big fish, red fish, blue fish: size-biased

extinction risk of the world’s freshwater and marine

fishes. Global Ecology and Biogeography,16, 694–701.

Olden, J. D., Poff, N. L., and Bestgen, K. R. (2008) Trait

synergisms and the rarity, extirpation, and extinction

risk of desert fishes. Ecology,89, 847–56.

Olmstead, A. L. and Wooten, D. B. (1987) Bee pollination

and productivity growth: the case of alfalfa. American

Journal of Agricultural Economy,69,56–63.

Olschewski, R., Tscharntke, T., Benítez, P., Schwarze, C. S.,

and Klein, A. M. (2006) Economic evaluation of polli-

nation services comparing coffee landscapes in Ecuador

and Indonesia. Ecology and Society,11,7.

Olson, M. K. (2004) Are novel drugs more risky for

patients than less novel drugs? Journal of Health Eco-

nomics 23, 1135–58.

Omer, A., Pascual, U., and Russell, N. P. (2007) Biodiversity

conservation and productivity in intensive agricultural

systems. Journal of Agricultural Economics,58,308–29.

Ortega, Y. K., Pearson, D. E., and McKelvey, K. S. (2004)

Effects of biological control agents and exotic plant

invasion on deer mouse populations. Ecological Applica-

tions,14, 241–53.

Orwin, K. H., Wardle, D. A., and Greenfield, L. G. (2006)

Ecological consequences of carbon substrate identity

and diversity in a laboratory study. Ecology,87, 580–93.

Osenberg, C. W., Sarnelle, O., Cooper, S. D., and Holt, R.

D. (1999) Resolving ecological questions through meta-

analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology,80,

1105–17.

Ostfeld, R. S. and Holt, R. D. (2004) Are predators good for

your health? Evaluating evidence for top-down regula-

tion of zoonotic disease reservoirs. Frontiers in Ecology

and the Environment,2,13–20.

Ostfeld, R. S. and Logiudice, K. (2003) Community disas-

sembly, biodiversity loss, and the erosion of an ecosys-

tem service. Ecology,84, 1421–7.

Ostfeld, R. S. and Keesing, F. (2000a) Biodiversity and

disease risk: the case of Lyme disease. Conservation

Biology,14, 722–8.

Ostfeld, R. S. and Keesing, F. (2000b) The role of biodi-

versity in the ecology of vector-borne zoonotic diseases.

Canadian Journal of Zoology,78, 2061–78.

Ostfeld, R. S. and Holt, R. D. (2004) Are predators good for

your health? Evaluating evidence for top-down regula-

tion of zoonotic disease reservoirs. Frontiers in Ecology

and the Environment,2,13–20.

Ostfeld, R. S., Keesing, F., and LoGiudice, K. (2006)

Community ecology meets epidemiology: the case of

Lyme disease. In S. Collinge and C. Ray (eds.) Disease

Ecology: Community Structure and Pathogen Dynamics,

pp. 28–40. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ostling, A. (2005) Ecology –Neutral theory tested by birds.

Nature,436, 635–6.

Otway, S. J., Hector, A., and Lawton, J. H. (2005) Resource

dilution effects on specialist insect herbivores in a

grassland biodiversity experiment. Journal of Animal

Ecology,74, 234–40.

Owens, I. P. F. and Bennett, P. M. (2000) Ecological basis of

extinction risk in birds: habitat loss versus human per-

secution and introduced predators. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Science USA,97, 12144–8.

Owensby, C. E., Ham, J. M., Knapp, A. K., and Auen, L. M.

(1999) Biomass production and species composition

change in a tallgrass prairie ecosystem after long-term

exposure to elevated atmospheric CO

.Global Change

Biology,5, 497–506.

Pacala, S. and Tilman, D. (1994) Limiting similarity in

mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in

heterogeneous environments. The American Naturalist,

143, 222–57.

Pacala, S. W. and Deutschman, D. H. (1995) Details that

matter: the spatial distribution of individual trees

maintains forest ecosystem function. Oikos,74,357–65.

Pacala, S. W., Canham, C. D., Saponara, J., Silander, J. A.,

Kobe, R. K., and Ribbens, E. (1996) Forest models

defined by field measurements: estimation, error analy-

sis and dynamics. Ecological Monographs,66,1–43.

336 REFERENCES

Pace, M. L., Cole, J. J., Carpenter, S. R., and Kitchell, J. F.

(1999) Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution,14, 483–8.

Pachepsky, E., Bown, J. L., Eberst, A., et al. (2007) Con-

sequences of intraspeciﬁc variation for the structure

and function of ecological communities Part 2: Linking

diversity and function. Ecological Modelling,207,

277–85.

Pagiola, S. (2002) Paying for water services in Central

America: learning from Costa Rica. In S. Pagiola,

J. Bishop, and N. Landell-Mills (eds.) Selling Forest Envi-

ronmental Services: Market-Based Mechanisms for Conserva-

tion and Development, pp. 37–62. Earthscan, London.

Pagiola, S., von Ritter, K., and Bishop, J. (2004) How Much

is an Ecosystem Worth? Assessing the Economic Value of

Conservation. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Paine, R. T. (1966) Food web complexity and species

diversity. American Naturalist,100,65–7.

Paine, R. T. (2002) Trophic control of production in a rocky

intertidal community. Science,296, 736–9.

Palm, C. P., Vosti, S. A., Sanchez, P. A., and Ericksen, P. J.

(2005) Slash-and-Burn Agriculture: the Search for Alter-

natives. Columbia University Press, New York.

Palmer, M. A., Ambrose, R. F., and Poff, N. L. (1997)

Ecological theory and community restoration ecology.

Restoration Ecology,5, 291–300.

Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E., et al. (2004) Ecol-

ogy: ecology for a crowded planet. Science,304,1251–2.

Panayotou, T. (1994) Economic instruments for environ-

mental management and sustainable development.

Prepared for the United Nations Environment Pro-

gramme’s Consultative Expert Group Meeting on them

Use and Application of Economic Policy Instruments for

Environmental Management and Sustainable Develop-

ment, Nairobi, 23–24 February 1995. Environmental Eco-

nomics Series Paper No. 16

Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. (2003) A globally coherent

fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural

systems. Nature,421,37–42.

Pascual, U. and Perrings, C. P. (2007) Developing incen-

tives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity

conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture,

Ecosystems, and Environment,121, 256–68.

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., and

Torres, F. (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Sci-

ence,279, 860–3.

Pausas, J. G., Bradstock, R. A., Keith, D. A., Keeley, J. E.,

and GTCE (2004) Plant functional traits in relation to fire

in crown-fire ecosystems. Ecology,85, 1085–100.

Pautasso, M., Holdenrieder, O., and Stenlid, J. (2005)

Susceptibility to fungal pathogens of forests differing in

tree diversity. In M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Körner, and

E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The Functional Significance of Forest

Diversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Pavoine, S. and Doledec, S. (2005) The apportionment of

quadratic entropy: a useful alternative for partitioning

diversity in ecological data. Environmental and Ecological

Statistics,12, 125–38.

Peacock, L., Hunter, T., Turner, H., and Brain, P. (2001)

Does host genotype diversity affect the distribution of

insect and disease damage in willow cropping systems?

Journal of Applied Ecology,38, 1070–81.

Pearce, D. W. and Puroshothamon, S. (1995) The economic

value of plant-based pharmaceuticals. In T. Swanson (ed.)

Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity Conservation,

pp. 127–38. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pearce, D. W. (1993) Economic Values and the Natural World.

Earthscan, London.

Pearce, D. W., Moran, D., and Krug, W. (1999) The Global

Value of Biological Diversity: A Report to UNEP. Centre

for Social and Economic Research on the Global Envi-

ronment, University College London.

Pellant, M., Abbey, B., and Karl, S. (2004) Restoring the

Great Basin Desert, USA: integrating science, manage-

ment, and people. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-

ment,99, 169–79.

Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., Diaz, S., Cornelissen, J. H. C.,

Vendramini, F., Cabido, M., and Castellanos, A. (2000)

Chemistry and toughness predict leaf litter decomposi-

tion rates over a wide spectrum of functional types and

taxa in central Argentina. Plant and Soil,218,21–30.

Pérez Harguindeguy, N., Blundo, C., Gurvich, D., Díaz, S.,

and Cuevas, E. (2008) More than the sum of its parts?

Assessing litter heterogeneity effects on the decomposi-

tion of litter mixtures through leaf chemistry. Plant and

Soil,303, 151–9.

Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. H., Bautista, G. L., et al. (2004)

Greater predation in shaded coffee farms: the role of

resident neotropical birds. Ecology,85, 2677–81.

Perner, J. and Malt, S. (2003) Assessment of changing

agricultural land use: response of vegetation, ground-

dwelling spiders and beetles to the conversion of arable

land into grassland. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environ-

ment,98, 169–81.

Perrings, C. (1995) Biodiversity conservation and insurance.

In T. M. Swanson (ed.) The Economics and Ecology of Bio-

diversity Loss. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Perrings, C. (2001) The economics of biodiversity loss and

agricultural development in low income countries. In

D. R. Lee and C. B. Barrett (eds.) Tradeoffs or Synergies?

Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the

Environment, pp. 57–72. CAB International, Wallingford.

Perrings, C. and Gadgil, M. (2003) Conserving biodiver-

sity: reconciling local and global public benefits. In

REFERENCES 337

I. Kaul, P. Conceicao, K. le Goulven, and R. L. Mendoza

(eds.) Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globaliza-

tion, pp. 532–55. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Perrings, C. and Vincent, J. (eds.) (2003) Natural Resource

Accounting and Economic Development. Edward Elgar,

Cheltenham.

Perrings, C., Mäler, K.-G., Folke, C., Holling, C. S., and

Jansson, B.-O. (eds.) (1995) Biodiversity Loss: Economic and

Ecological Issues, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Perrings C., Williamson, M., and Dalmazzone, S. (eds.)

(2000) The Economics of Biological Invasions. Edward

Elgar, Cheltenham.

Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Barbier, E. B., et al. (2002)

Biological invasion risks and the public good: an eco-

nomic perspective. Conservation Ecology,6, 1. Available

online at http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art1.

Perrings, C., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Touza, J., and

Williamson, M. (2005) How to manage biological

invasions under globalization. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution,20(5), 212–15.

Petchey, O. L. (2004) On the statistical significance of

functional diversity. Functional Ecology,18, 297–303.

Petchey, O. L. and Gaston, K. J. (2002a) Functional diver-

sity (fd), species richness, and community composition.

Ecology Letters,5, 402–11.

Petchey, O. L. and Gaston, K. J. (2002b) Extinction and the

loss of functional diversity. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,269,

1721–7.

Petchey, O. L. and Gaston, K. J. (2006) Functional diversity:

back to basics and looking forward. Ecology Letters,9,

741–58.

Petchey, O. L. and Gaston, K. J. (2007) Dendrograms and

measuring functional diversity. Oikos,116, 1422–6.

Petchey, O. L., McPhearson, P. T., Casey, T. M., and

Morin, P. J. (1999) Environmental warming alters food-

web structure and ecosystem function. Nature,402,

69–72.

Petchey, O. L., Morin, P. J., Hulot, F. D., Loreau, M.,

McGrady-Steed, J., and Naeem, S. (2002a) Contributions

of aquatic model systems to our understanding of bio-

diversity and ecosystem functioning. In M. Loreau,

S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti (eds.) Biodiversity and Eco-

system Functioning: Syntheses and Perspectives, pp. 127–39.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Petchey, O. L., Casey, T., Jiang, L., McPhearson, P. T., and

Price, J. (2002b) Species richness, environmental fluc-

tuations, and temporal change in total community bio-

mass. Oikos,99, 231–40.

Petchey, O. L., Downing, A. L., Mittelbach, G. G., et al.

(2004a) Species loss and the structure and functioning of

multitrophic aquatic systems. Oikos,104, 467–78.

Petchey, O. L., Hector, A., and Gaston, K. J. (2004b) How

do different measures of functional diversity perform?

Ecology,85, 847–57.

Petchey, O. L., Evans, K. L., Fishburn, I. S., and Gaston, K. J.

(2007) Low functional diversity and no redundancy in

British avian assemblages. Journal of Animal Ecology,76,

977–85.

Petchey, O. L., Beckerman, A. P., Riede, J. O., and Warren,

P. H. (2008a) Size, foraging, and food web structure.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,

105, 4191–6.

Petchey, O. L., Eklof, A., Borrvall, C., and Ebenman, B.

(2008b) Trophically unique species are vulnerable

to cascading extinction. American Naturalist,171,568–79.

Petermann, J., Fergus, A. J., Turnbull, L. A., and Schmid, B.

(2008) Janzen-Connell effects are both widespread and

strong enough to maintain functional diversity in

grasslands. Ecology,89(9), 2399–406.

Peters, C. M., Balick, M. J., Kahn, F., and Anderson, A. B.

(1989) Oligarchic forests of economic plants in ammonia:

Utilization and conservation of an important tropical

resource. Conservation Biology,3(4), 341–9.

Peterson, G., Allen, C. R., and Holling, C. S. (1998) Ecological

resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems,1,6–18.

Pfisterer, A. B. and Schmid, B. (2002) Diversity-dependent

production can decrease the stability of ecosystem

functioning. Nature,416,84–6.

Pfisterer, A. B., Diemer, M., and Schmid, B. (2003) Dietary

shift and lowered biomass gain of a generalist herbivore

in species-poor experimental plant communities. Oeco-

logia,135, 234–41.

Philpott, S. M. and Armbrecht, I. (2006) Biodiversity in

tropical agroforests and the ecological role of ants and

ant diversity in predatory function. Ecological Entomol-

ogy,31, 369–77.

Philpott, S. M., Uno, S., and Maldonado, J. (2006) The

importance of ants and high-shade management to

coffee pollination and fruit weight in Chiapas, Mexico.

Biodiversity and Conservation,15, 487–501.

Pías, B. and Guitián, P. (2006) Breeding system and

pollen limitation in the masting tree Sorbus aucuparia L.

(Rosaceae) in the NW Iberian Peninsula. Acta Oecologica,

29,97–103.

Pimentel, D. (1961) Species diversity and insect population

outbreaks. Annals of the Entomological Society of America,

54,76–86.

Pimentel, D., Wilson, C., McCullum, C., et al. (1997) Eco-

nomic and environmental beneﬁts of biodiversity. Bio-

Science,47, 747–57.

Pimentel, D., Berger, B., Filiberto, D., et al. (2004) Water

resources: agricultural and environmental issues. Bio-

science,54, 909–18.

338 REFERENCES

Pimm, S. L. (1980) Food web design and the effect of

species deletion. Oikos,35, 139–49.

Pimm, S. L. (1982) Food Webs. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

Pimm, S. L. (1984) The complexity and stability of eco-

systems. Nature,307, 321–6.

Pimm, S. L. and Lawton, J. H. (1977) Number of trophic

levels in ecological communities. Nature,268, 329–31.

Pimm, S. L. and Lawton, J. H. (1978) Feeding on more than

one trophic level. Nature,275, 542–4.

Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L., and Brooks, T. M.

(1995) The future of biodiversity. Science,269,347–50.

Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. (2000) Mixed Effects Models

in S And S-Plus. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Pinkus-Rendon, M. A., Parra-Tabla, V., and Melendez-

Ramirez, V. (2005) Floral resource use and interactions

between Apis mellifera and native bees in cucurbit

crops in Yucatan, Mexico. Canadian Entomologist,137,

441–9.

Piotto, D., Viquez, E., Montagnini, F., and Kanninen, M.

(2004) Pure and mixed forest plantations with native

species of the dry tropics of Costa Rica: a comparison of

growth and productivity. Forest Ecology and Management,

190, 359–72.

Podani, J. and Schmera, D. (2006) On dendrogram-based

measures of functional diversity. Oikos,115, 179–85.

Poff, N. L., Olden, J. D., Vieira, N. K. M., Finn, D. S.,

Simmons, M. P., and Kondratieff, B. C. (2006) Func-

tional trait niches of North American lotic insects:

traits-based ecological applications in light of phylo-

genetic relationships. Journal of the North American

Benthological Society,25,730–55.

Polasky, S. and Doremus, H. (1998) When the truth hurts:

endangered species policy on private land with imper-

fect information. Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management,35,22–47.

Polasky, S. and Solow, A. R. (1995) On the value of a

collection of species. Journal of Environmental Economics

and Management,29, 298–303.

Polasky, S., Solow, A. R., and Broadus, J. M. (1993)

Searching for uncertain benefits and the conservation of

biological diversity. Environmental and Resource Eco-

nomics,3, 171–81.

Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Lonsdorf, E., Fackler, P., and

Starfield, A. (2003) Conserving species in a working

landscape: land use with biological and economic

objectives. Ecological Applications,15(4), 1387–401.

Polasky, S., Costello, C., and McAusland, C. (2004) On

trade, land-use and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management,48, 911–25.

Polis, G. A. (1991) Complex trophic interactions in deserts –

an empirical critique of food-web theory. American

Naturalist,138,123–55.

Polis, G. A. and Holt, R. D. (1992) Intraguild predation –

the dynamics of complex trophic interactions. Trends in

Ecology & Evolution,7, 151–4.

Polis, G. A. and Strong, D. R. (1996) Food web complexity

and community dynamics. American Naturalist,147,

813–46.

Polis, G. A., Anderson, W. B., and Holt, R. D. (1997) Toward

an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the

dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics,28,289–316.

Polley, H. W., Mayeux, H. S., Johnson, H. B., and

Tischler, C. R. (1997) Viewpoint: atmospheric CO

, soil

water, and shrub/grass ratios on rangelands. Journal of

Range Management,50, 278–84.

Polley, H. W., Johnson, H. B., and Derner, J. D. (2003)

Increasing CO

from subambient to superambient con-

centrations alters species composition and increases

above-ground biomass in a C-3/C-4 grassland. New

Phytologist,160, 319–27.

Popper, D. E. and Popper, F. J. (1987) The Great Plains:

from dust to dust. Planning,53,12–18.

Popper, F. J. and Popper, D. E. (2006) The onset of the

Buffalo Commons. Journal of the West,45,29–34.

Potthoff, M., Jackson, L. E., Steenwerth, K. L., Ramirez, I.,

Stromberg, M. R., and Rolston, D. E. (2005) Soil bio-

logical and chemical properties in restored perennial

grassland in California. Restoration Ecology,13,61–73.

Potts,S.G.,Petanidou,T.,Roberts,S.,O’Toole,C.,Hulbert,A.,

and Willmer, P. (2006) Plant–pollinator biodiversity

and pollination services in a complex Mediterranean

landscape. Biological Conservation,129,519–29.

Potvin, C. and Gotelli, N. J. (2008) Biodiversity enhances

individual performance but does not affect survivorship

in tropical trees. Ecology Letters,11, 217–23.

Potvin, C. and Vasseur, L. (1997) Long-term CO

enrich-

ment of a pasture community: species richness, domi-

nance, and succession. Ecology,78, 666–77.

Poulin, R. (2004) Macroecological patterns of species rich-

ness in parasite assemblages. Basic and Applied Ecology,5,

423–34.

Poulin, J., Sakai, A. K., Weller, S. G., and Nguyen, T. (2007)

Phenotypic plasticity, precipitation, and invasiveness in

the fire-promoting grass Pennisetum setaceum (Poaceae).

American Journal of Botany,94, 533–41.

Power, M. E., Tilman, D., Estes, J. A., Menge, B. A., Bond,

W. J., Mills, L. S., Daily, G., Castilla, J. C., Lubchenco, J.,

and Paine, R. T. (1996) Challenges in the quest for key-

stones. BioScience,46, 609–20.

Powers, J. S., Haggar, J. P., and Fisher, R. F. (1997) The effect

of overstory composition on understory woody regener-

ation and species richness in 7-year old plantations in

Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management,99,43–54.

REFERENCES 339

Prance, G. T. (2002) Species survival and carbon retention in

commercially exploited tropical rainforest. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A: Math-

ematical Physical and Engineering Sciences,360,1777–85.

Prasad, R. P. and Snyder, W. E. (2006) Polyphagy compli-

cates conservation biological control that targets gener-

alist predators. Journal of Applied Ecology,43,343–52.

Pregitzer, K. S. and Euskirchen, E. S. (2004) Carbon cycling

and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to

forest age. Global Change Biology,10, 2052–77.

Prentice, I. C., Farquhar, G. D., Fasham, M. J. R., et al.

(2001) The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon diox-

ide. In J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer,

P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, C. A. Johnson

(eds.) Climate Change 2001: The Scientiﬁc Basis. Contribu-

tion of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Pretty, J. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture.Earthscan,London.

Pretty, J. and Ball, A. (2001) Agricultural Influences on

Emissions and Sequestration of Carbon and Emerging

Trading Options. University of Essex, Colchester.

Pretzsch, H. (2005) Diversity and productivity in forests:

evidence from long-term experimentalplots. In M. Scherer-

Lorenzen, C. Körner, E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The Functional

Significance of Forest Diversity.Springer-Verlag,Berlin.

Price, G. R. (1970) Selection and covariance. Nature,227,

520–1.

Price, G. R. (1995) The nature of selection. Journal of Theo-

retical Biology,175, 389–96.

Priess, J. A., Mimler, M., Klein, A. M., Schwarze, S.,

Tscharntke, T., and Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2007) Linking

deforestation scenarios to pollination services and eco-

nomic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecological

Applications,17, 407–17.

Prieur-Richard, A. H., Lavorel, S., Linhart, Y. B., and

Dos Santos, A. (2002) Plant diversity, herbivory and

resistance of a plant community to invasion in

Mediterranean annual communities. Oecologia,130,

96–104.

Prosser, J. I., Bohannan, B. J. M., Curtis, T. P., et al. (2007)

The role of ecological theory in microbial ecology. Nature

Reviews Microbiology,5, 384–92.

Pulford, I. D. and Watson, C. (2003) Phytoremediation of

heavy metal-contaminated land by trees –a review.

Environment International,29, 529–40.

Pulkkinen, K. (2007) Microparasite transmission to Daph-

nia magna decreases in the presence of conspeciﬁcs.

Oecologia,154,45–53.

Pullin, A., Knight, T., Stone, D., et al. (2004) Do conserva-

tion managers use scientiﬁc evidence to support their

decision making? Biological Conservation,119, 245–52.

Purvis, A., Agapow, P.-M., Gittleman, J. L., and Mace, G. M.

(2000a). Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolu-

tionary history. Science,288,328–30.

Purvis, A., Jones, K. E., and Mace, G. M. (2000c) Extinction.

Bioessays,22, 1123–33.

Pywell,R.F.,Bullock,J.M.,Hopkins,A.,et al. (2002)

Restoration of species-rich grassland on arable

land: assessing the limiting processes using a

multi-site experiment. Journal of Applied Ecology,39,

294–309.

Pywell, R. F., Bullock, J. M., Roy, D. B., Warman, L. I. Z.,

Walker, K. J., and Rothery, P. (2003) Plant traits as pre-

dictors of performance in ecological restoration. Journal

of Applied Ecology,40,65–77.

Pywell, R. F., Bullock, J. M., Tallowin, J. B. R., Walker, K. J.,

Warman, E. A., and Masters, G. J. (2007) Enhancing

diversity of species-poor grasslands: An experimental

assessment of multiple constraints. Journal of Applied

Ecology,44,81–94.

Qaim, M. and Zilberman, D. (2003) Yield effects of genet-

ically modified crops in developing countries. Science,

299, 900–2.

Quaas, M. F. and Baumgärtner, S. (2008) Natural vs.

financial insurance in the management of public-good

ecosystems. Ecological Economics,65, 397–406.

Quince, C., Curtis, T. P., and Sloan, W. T. (2008) The

rational exploration of microbial diversity. The ISME

Journal,2(10), 997–1006.

Quintana,X.D.,Brucet,S.,Boix,D.,et al. (2008) A

nonparametric method for the measurement of size

diversity with emphasis on data standardization.

Limnology and Oceanography –Methods,6,75–86.

R Development Core Team (2006) R: a Language and

Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

R Development Core Team (2008) R: a Language and

Environment for Statistical Computing. R foundation for

statistical computing. Vienna, Austria.

Raffaelli, D. (2004) How extinction patterns affect ecosys-

tems. Science,306, 1141–2.

Raffaelli, D. G. (2006) Biodiversity and ecosystem func-

tioning: issues of scale and trophic complexity. Marine

Ecology Progress Series,311, 285–94.

Raffaelli, D., Van der Putten, W. H., Persson, L., et al.

(2002) Multi-trophic dynamics and ecosystem pro-

cesses. In M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti (eds.)

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Syntheses and

Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Raffaelli, D., Emmerson, M., Solan, M., et al. (2003) Biodi-

versity and ecosystem functioning in shallow coastal

waters: an experimental approach. Journal of Sea

Research,49, 133–41.

340 REFERENCES

Raffaelli, D., Solan, M., and Webb, T. J. (2005a). Do marine

ecologists do it differently? Marine Ecology Progress

Series,304, 283–9.

Raffaelli, D., Cardinale, B. J., Downing, A. L., et al. (2005b)

Reinventing the wheel in ecology research? –Response.

Science,307, 1875–6.

Rand, T. A., Tylianakis, J. M., and Tscharntke, T. (2006)

Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally

subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural

habitats. Ecology Letters,9, 603–14.

Randall, A. (2002) Valuing the outputs of multifunctional

agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics,

29(3), 289–307.

Rantalainen, M. L., Fritze, H., Haimi, J., Pennanen, T., and

Setälä, H. (2005) Species richness and food web structure

of soil decomposer community as affected by size of

habitat and habitat corridors. Global Change Biology,11,

1614–27.

Rappé, M. S. and Giavannoni, S. J. (2002) The uncultured

microbial majority. Annual Review of Microbiology,57,

369–94.

Rasko, D. A., Altherr, M. R., Han, C. S., and Ravel, J. (2005)

Genomics of the Bacillus cereus group of organisms.

FEMS Microbiology Reviews,29, 303–29.

Rausser, G. C. and Small, A. (2000) Valuing research leads:

bioprospecting and the conservation of genetic resour-

ces, Journal of Political Economy,108(1), 173–206.

Raven, P. H. (2002) Science, sustaniability, and the human

prospect. Science,297, 954–8.

Raviraja, N. S., Sridhar, K. R., and Bärlocher, F. (1998)

Breakdown of Ficus and Eucalyptus leaves in an

organically polluted river in India: fungal diversity

and ecological functions. Freshwater Biology,39,

537–45.

Rayner, M. J., Hauber, M. E., Imber, M. J., Stamp, R. K.,

and Clout, M. N. (2007) Spatial heterogeneity of meso-

predator release within an oceanic island system. Pro-

ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,

104, 20862–5.

Redondo-Brenes, A. and Montagnini, F. (2006) Growth,

productivity, aboveground biomass, and carbon

sequestration of pure and mixed native tree plantations

in the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica. Forest Ecology

and Management,232, 168–78.

Reich, P. B., Ellsworth, D. S., Walters, M. B., et al. (1999)

Generality of leaf trait relationships: a test across six

biomes. Ecology,80, 1955–69.

Reich, P. B., Knops, J., Tilman, D., et al. (2001a) Plant

diversity inﬂuences ecosystem responses to elevated

and nitrogen enrichment. Nature,410, 809–12.

Reich, P. B., Tilman, D., Craine, J., Ellsworth, D.,

Tjoelker, M. G., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Naeem, S.,

Bahauddin, D., Goth, J., Bengtson, W., and Lee, T. D.

(2001b) Do species and functional groups differ in

acquisition and use of C, N and water under varying

atmospheric CO

and N availability regimes? A field test

with 16 grassland species. New Phytologist,150, 435–48.

Reich, P. B., Tilman, D., Naeem, S., et al. (2004) Species and

functional group diversity independently inﬂuence

biomass accumulation and its response to CO

and N.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,

101, 10101–6.

Reich, P. B., Tjoelker, M. G., Machado, J. L., and Oleksyn, J.

(2006) Universal scaling of respiratory metabolism, size

and nitrogen in plants. Nature,439, 457–61.

Reid, W. V. C. (1989) Sustainable development –lessons

from success. Environment,31,7–9.

Rejmanek, M. and Richardson, D. M. (1996) What attri-

butes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology,

77, 1655–61.

Rejmankova, E., Rejmanek, M., Djohan, T., and

Goldman, C. R. (1999) Resistance and resilience of sub-

alpine wetlands with respect to prolonged drought. Folia

Geobotanica,34, 175–88.

Resh, S. C., Binkley, D., and Parotta, J. A. (2002) Greater

soil carbon sequestration under nitrogen-fixing trees

compared with Eucalyptus species. Ecosystems,5, 217–31.

Reusch, T. B. H., Ehlers, A., Hammerli, A., and Worm, B.

(2005) Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes

enhanced by genotypic diversity. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,102, 2826–31.

Reynolds, J. D., Dulvy, N. K., Goodwin, N. B., and

Hutchings, J. A. (2005) Biology of extinction risk in

marine fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences,272, 2337–44.

Rhoades, C. C., Ekert, G. E., and Coleman, D. C. (2000) Soil

carbon differences among forest, agriculture and sec-

ondary vegetation in lower montane Ecuador. Ecological

Applications,10, 497–505.

Richardson, C. J. and Hussain, N. A. (2006) Restoring the

Garden of Eden: an ecological assessment of the marshes

of Iraq. Bioscience,56, 477–89.

Richardson, D. M. and Pysek, P. (2006) Plant invasions:

merging the concepts of species invasiveness and

community invasibility. Progress in Physical Geography,

30, 409–31.

Richardson, D. M. and Rejmanek, M. (2004) Conifers as

invasive aliens: a global survey and predictive frame-

work. diversity and distributions, 10, 321–31.

Richardson, S. J., Press, M. C., Parsons, A. N., and

Hartley, S. E. (2002) How do nutrients and warming

impact on plant communities and their insect herbivores?

A 9-year study from a sub-Arctic heath. Journal of Ecology,

90,544–56.

REFERENCES 341

Richardson, S. J., Peltzer, D. A., Allen, R. B., McGlone, M. S.,

and Parfitt, R. L. (2004) Rapid development of phos-

phorus limitation in temperate rainforest along the Franz

Josef soil chronosequence. Oecologia,139,267–76.

Richerson, P., Armstrong, R., and Goldman, C. R. (1970)

Contemporaneous disequilibrium, a new hypothesis to

explain the paradox of the plankton. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,67, 1710–14.

Ricketts, T. H. (2004) Tropical forest fragments enhance

pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops. Conservation

Biology,18, 1262–71.

Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., and Michener, C. D.

(2004) Economic value of tropical forest to coffee produc-

tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

USA,101, 12579–82.

Ricketts, T. H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I. et al. (2008)

Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there

general patterns? Ecology Letters,11, 499–515.

Ricklefs, R. E. and Miller, G. (1999) Ecology. W. H. Free-

man, New York.

Ricotta, C. (2004) A parametric diversity measure com-

bining the relative abundances and taxonomic distinc-

tiveness of species. Diversity and Distributions,10,

143–46.

Ricotta, C. (2005a) A note on functional diversity mea-

sures. Basic and Applied Ecology,6, 479–86.

Ricotta, C. (2005b) Through the jungle of biological

diversity. Acta Biotheoretica,53,29–38.

Ricotta, C. (2007) A semantic taxonomy for diversity

measures. Acta Biotheoretica,55,23–33.

Robertson, G. P. and Swinton, S. M. (2005) Reconciling

agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a

grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and

the Environment,3,38–46.

Robinson, G. R., Holt, R. D., Gaines, M. S., et al. (1992)

Diverse and contrasting effects of habitat fragmentation.

Science,257, 524–6.

Robinson, W. S., Nowogrodzki, R., and Morse, R. A. (1989)

The value of honey bees as pollinators of U.S. crops.

American Bee Journal,129, 411–23.

Rodrıguez, L. C., Pascual, U., and Niemeyer, H. M. (2006)

Local identification and valuation of ecosystem goods

and services from Opuntia scrublands of Ayacucho,

Peru. Ecological Economics,57,30–44.

Romanuk, T. N., Vogt, R. J., and Kolasa, J. (2006) Nutrient

enrichment weakens the stabilizing effect of species

richness. Oikos,114, 291–302.

Rooney, N., McCann, K., Gellner, G., and Moore, J. C.

(2006) Structural asymmetry and the stability of diverse

food webs. Nature,442, 265–9.

Root, R. B. (1967) The niche exploitation pattern of the

blue–gray gnatcatcher. Ecological Monographs,37,317–50.

Root, R. B. (1973) Organization of plant–arthropod asso-

ciation in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of col-

lards (i. Brassica oleracea). Ecological monographs,43,

95–124.

Root, T. L., Price, J. T., Hall, K. R., Schneider, S. H.,

Rosenzweig, C., and Pounds, J. A. (2003) Fingerprints of

global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature,421,

57–60.

Roscher, C., Schumacher, J., Baade, J., et al. (2004) The role

of biodiversity for element cycling and trophic interac-

tions: and experimental approach in a grassland com-

munity. Basic and Applied Ecology,5, 107–21.

Roscher, C., Temperton, V. M., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., et al.

(2005) Overyielding in experimental grassland

communities –irrespective of species pool or spatial

scale. Ecology Letters,8, 419–29.

Rose, N. L. (1990) Profitability and product quality: eco-

nomic determinants of airline safety performance. Jour-

nal of Political Economy,98(5), 944–64.

Rosenberg, M. J., Adams, D. C., and Gurevitch, J. (2000)

Metawin 2.0 User’s Manual: Statistical Software for Meta-

Analysis. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Rosenberger, R. S. and Loomis, J. B. (2000) Using meta-

analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent

validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water

Resources Research,36, 1097–107.

Rosenheim, J. A. (2007) Intraguild predation: new theore-

tical and empirical perspectives. Ecology,88, 2679–80.

Rosenheim, J. A., Kaya, H. K., Ehler, L. E., Marois, J. J., and

Jaffee, B. A. (1995) Intraguild predation among biologi-

cal control agents –theory and evidence. Biological

Control,5, 303–35.

Rosenzweig, M. L. (1971) Paradox of enrichment: desta-

bilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time.

Science,171, 385–7.

Rosenzweig, M. L. (1987) Restoration ecology: a tool

to study population interactions. In W. R. Jordan,

M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber (eds.) Restoration Ecology: a

Synthetic Appraoch to Ecological Research. Cambridge

University Press, New York.

Rosgen, D. L. (1994) A classification of natural rivers.

Catena,22, 169–99.

Roubik, D. W. (2002) The value of bees to the coffee har-

vest. Nature,417, 708.

Rouget, M., Cowling, R. M., Vlok, J., et al. (2006) Getting

the biodiversity intactness index right: the importance of

habitat degradation data. Global Change Biology,12,

2032–6.

Rowe, E. C., Van Noordwijk, M., Suprayogo, D., and

Cadisch, G. (2005) Nitrogen use efficiency of monocul-

ture and hedgerow intercropping in the humid tropics.

Plant and Soil,268,61–74.

342 REFERENCES

Rowlands, I. H. (1996) South Africa and global climate

change. Journal of Modern African Studies 34(1), 163–78.

Roy, M., Holt, R. D., and Barfield. M. (2005) Temporal

autocorrelation can enhance the persistence and abun-

dance of metapopulations comprised of coupled sinks.

American Naturalist,166, 246–61.

Royal Society (2008) Biodiversity–climate interactions:

adaptation, mitigation and human ivelihoods. Policy

document 30/07. The Royal Society, London.

Royer, D. L. and Wilf, P. (2006) Why do toothed leaves

correlate with cold climates? Gas exchange at leaf mar-

gins provides new insights into a classic paleo-

temperature proxy. International Journal of Plant Sciences,

167,11–18.

Royer, D. L., Wilf, P., Janesko, D. A., Kowalski, E. A., and

Dilcher, D. L. (2005) Correlations of climate and plant

ecology to leaf size and shape: potential proxies for the

fossil record. American Journal of Botany,92, 1141–51.

Rozzi, R. (2004) Ethical implications of yahgan and

mapuche indigenous narratives about the birds of the

austral temperate forests of South America. Ornitologia

Neotropical,15, 435–44.

Rudolf, V. H. and Antonovics, J. (2005) Species coexistence

and pathogens with frequency-dependent transmission.

American Naturalist,166, 112–18.

Ruel, J. J. and Ayres. M. P. (1999) Jensen’s inequality pre-

dicts effects of environmental variation. Trends in Ecol-

ogy and Evolution,14, 361–6.

Ruesink, J. L., Lenihan, H. S., Trimble, A. C., et al. (2005)

Introduction of non-native oysters: ecosystem effects

and restoration implications. Annual Review of Ecology

Evolution and Systematics,36, 643–89.

Ruesink, J. L., Feist, B. E., Harvey, C. J., et al. (2006)

Changes in productivity associated with four introduced

species: ecosystem transformation of a ‘pristine’estuary.

Marine Ecology Progress Series,311, 203–15.

Ruiz, G. M., Fofonoff, P., Hines, A. H., and Grosholz, E. D.

(1999) Non-indigenous species as stressors in estuarine

and marine communities: assessing invasion impacts and

interactions. Limnology and Oceanography,44,950–72.

Rundlof, M. and Smith, H. G. (2006) The effect of organic

farming on butterfly diversity depends on landscape

context. Journal of Applied Ecology,43, 1121–7.

Runge, C. F. (2001) A Global Environment Organization

(GEO) and the World Trading System: Prospects and Pro-

blems. Working Paper WP01-1, Center for International

Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Minnesota,

St Paul, MN.

Russell, A. E., Cambardella, J. A., Ewel, J. J., and Parkin, T. B.

(2004) Species, rotation and life-form diversity effects on

soil carbon in experimental tropical ecosystems. Ecological

Applications,14,47–60.

Sabine, C. L., Heimann, M., Artaxo, P., et al. (2004) Current

status and past trends of the global carbon cycle. In

C. B. Field and M. R. Raupach (eds.) Global Carbon Cycle:

Integrating Humans, Climate, and the Natural World. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Sachs, J. D. (2004) Sustainable development. Science,304,

649.

Saha, S. and Howe, H. F. (2003) Species composition and

fire in a dry deciduous forest. Ecology,84, 3118–23.

Sala, O. E., Chapin, F. S., Armesto, J. J., et al. (2000) Bio-

diversity: global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.

Science,287, 1770–4.

Sall, S. N., Masse, D., Ndour, N. Y. B., and Chotte, J. L.

(2006) Does cropping modify the decomposition func-

tion and the diversity of the soil microbial community of

tropical fallow soil? Applied Soil Ecology,31, 211–19.

Sampath, P. G. (2005) Regulating Bioprospecting: Institutions

for Drug Research, Access and Benefit-Sharing. United

Nations University Press, New York, NY.

Sanderson,M.A.,Soder,K.J.,Muller,L.D.andKlement,K.D.

(2005) Forage mixture productivity and botanical com-

position in pastures grazed by dairy cattle. Agronomy

Journal,97,1465–71.

Sandhu, H. P., Wrattan, S. D., and Cullen, R. (2008) Eval-

uating Ecosystem Services on Farmland: a Novel, Experi-

mental, ‘Bottom-Up’Approach. ComitéInterne pour

l’Agriculture Biologique, CIAB-INRA.

Sandler, T. (2001) Economic Concepts in the New Century.

Cambridge University Press, New York.

Sanz, M., Schulze, E.-D., and Valentini, R. (2004) Interna-

tional policy framework on climate change: sinks in recent

international agreements. In C. Field and M. Raupach

(eds.) The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate,

and the Natural World. Island Press, Washington DC.

SAS Institute (1995) JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide,

Ver. 3.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Saunders, L., Hanbury-Tenison, R., and Swingland, I.

(2002) Social capital from carbon property: creating

equity for indigenous people. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society of London Series A,360, 1763–75.

Sax, D. F. and Gaines, S. D. (2003) Species diversity: from

global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology &

Evolution,18, 561–6.

Scarborough, C. L., Ferrari, J., and Godfray, H. C. J. (2005)

Aphid protected from pathogen by enodsymbiont. Sci-

ence,310, 1781.

Schamp, B. S., Chau, J., and Aarssen, L. W. (2008) Dis-

persion of traits related to competitive ability in an old-

field plant community. Journal of Ecology,96, 204–12.

Scheffer, M. and Carpenter, S. R. (2003) Catastrophic

regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observa-

tion. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,18, 648–56.

REFERENCES 343

Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Koerner, C., and Schulze, E.-D.

(2005a) Forest Diversity and Function –Temperate and

Boreal Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Potvin, C., Koricheva, J., et al.

(2005b). The design of experimental tree plantations

for functional biodiversity research. In M. Scherer-

Lorenzen,C.Körner, and E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The

Functional Signiﬁcance of Forest Diversity. Springer-

Verlag, Berlin.

Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schulze, E.-D., Don, A., Schu-

macher, J., and Weller, E. (2007a) Exploring the func-

tional significance of forest diversity: a new long-term

experiment with temperate tree species (biotree). Per-

spectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics,9,

53–70.

Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Bonilla, J. L., and Potvin, C. (2007b)

Tree species richness affects litter production and

decomposition rates in a tropical biodiversity experi-

ment. Oikos,116, 2108–24.

Scheu, S. (2001) Plants and generalist predators as links

between the below-ground and above-ground system.

Basic and Applied Ecology,2,3–13.

Schimel, D. (2007) Carbon cycle conundrums. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,104,

18353–4.

Schimel, D. S., House, J. I., Hibbard, K. A., et al. (2001)

Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by

terrestial ecosystems. Nature,414, 169–72.

Schläpfer, F. and Schmid, B. (1999) Ecosystem effects of

biodiversity: a classification of hypotheses and explora-

tion of empirical results. Ecological Applications,9,893–912.

Schläpfer, F., Schmid, B., and Seidl, I. (1999) Expert esti-

mates about effects of biodiversity on ecosystem pro-

cesses and services. Oikos,84, 346–52.

Schläpfer, F., Tucker, M., and Seidl, I. (2002) Returns from

hay cultivation in fertilized low diversity and non-fer-

tilized high diversity grassland. Environmental and

Resource Economics,21,89–100.

Schläpfer, F., Pfisterer, A. B., and Schmid, B. (2005) Non-

random species extinction and plant production: impli-

cations for ecosystem functioning. Journal of Applied

Ecology,42,13–24.

Schmera, D., Er

o

s, T., and Podani, J. (2009) A measure for

assessing functional diversity in ecological communities.

Aquatic Ecology,43(1), 157–67.

Schmid, B. (2002) The species richness–productivity con-

troversy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,17, 113–14.

Schmid, B., Hector, A., Huston, M. A., et al. (2002a) The

design and analysis of biodiversity experiments. In

M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti (eds.) Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Functioning. Synthesis and Perspectives,

pp. 61–75. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schmid, B., Joshi, J., and Schläpfer, F. (2002b). Empirical

evidence for biodiversity–ecosystem functioning rela-

tionships. In A. P. Kinzig, S. W. Pacala, and D. Tilman

(eds.) Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Empirical

Progress and Theoretical Extensions, pp. 120–50. Princeton

University Press, Princeton.

Schmid, B., Hector, A., Saha, P., and Loreau, M. (2008)

Biodiversity effects and transgressive overyielding.

Journal of Plant Ecology,1,95–102.

Schmid, B., Pfisterer, A. B., Balvanera, P., (2009) Effects of

biodiversity on ecosystem, community and population

variables reported 1974-2004. Ecology,90, 853.

Schmida, A. and Wilson. M. V. (1985) Biological determi-

nants of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography,12,

1–20.

Schmidt, K. A. and Ostfeld, R. S. (2001) Biodiversity and

the dilution effect in disease ecology. Ecology,82, 609–19.

Schmitz, O. J. (2008) Effects of predator hunting mode on

grassland ecosystem function. Science,319, 952–4.

Schmitz, O. J., Hamback, P. A., and Beckerman, A. P.

(2000) Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review

of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. American

Naturalist,155, 141–53.

Schmitz, O. J., Krivan, V., and Ovadia, O. (2004) Trophic

cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect inter-

actions. Ecology Letters,7, 153–63.

Schmitzberger, I., Wrbka, T., Steurer, B., Aschenbrenner,

G., Peterseil, J., and Zechmeister, H. G. (2005) How

farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in

Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems &

Environment,108,274–90.

Scholes, R. J. and Biggs, R. (2005) A biodiversity intactness

index. Nature,434,45–9.

Scholes, R. J. and van der Merwe, M. L. (1995) South

African green house inventory. CSIR Report FOR-DEA

918, Pretoria, CSIR.

Schroth, G., D’Angelo, S. A., Teixeira, W. G., Haag, D., and

Lieberei, R. (2002) Conversion of secondary forest into

agroforestry and monoculture plantations in Amazonia:

Consequences for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks

after 7 years. Forest Ecology and Management,163, 131–50.

Schulze, E.-D. (2005) Biological control of the terrestrial

carbon sink. Biogesociences Discussions,2, 1283–329.

Schulze, E.-D. and Mooney, H. A. (eds.) (1993) Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Function. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Schulze, E.-D., Valentini, R., and Sanz, M.-J. (2002) The

long way from Kyoto to Marrakesh: implications of the

Kyoto Protocol negotiations for global ecology. Global

Change Biology,8, 505–18.

Schulze, E., Mollicone, D., Achard, F., et al. (2003) Climate

change –making deforestation pay under the Kyoto

Protocol? Science,299, 1669.

344 REFERENCES

Schussman, H., Geiger, E., Mau-Crimmins, T., and

Ward, J. (2006) Spread and current potential distri-

bution of an alien grass, Eragrostis lehmanniana nees,in

the southwestern USA: comparing historical data and

ecological niche models. Diversity and Distributions,12,

582–92.

Schwartz, M. W., Brigham, C. A., Hoeksema, J. D.,

Lyons, K. G., Mills, M. H., and Van Mantgem, P. J.

(2000) Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function:

implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia,122,

297–305.

Schweiger, O., Maelfait, J. P., Van Wingerden, W. et al.

(2005) Quantifying the impact of environmental factors

on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes

across organizational levels and spatial scales. Journal of

Applied Ecology,42, 1129–39.

Schweitzer, J. A., Bailey, J. K., Rehill, B. J., et al. (2004)

Genetically based trait in a dominant tree affects eco-

system processes. Ecology Letters,7, 127–34.

Schweitzer, J. A., Bailey, J.K., Hart, S. C., and Whitman, T. G.

(2005a) Nonadditive effects of mixing cottonwood

genotypes on litter decomposition and nutrient dyamics.

Ecology,86,2834–40.

Schweitzer,J.A.,Bailey,J.K.,Hart,S.C.,Wimp,G.M.,

Chapman, S. K., and Whitham, T. G. (2005a) The

interaction of plant genotype and herbivory decelerate

leaf litter decomposition and alter nutrient dynamics.

Oikos,110,133–45.

Scott, J. C. (1998) Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press,

New Haven.

Seabloom, E. W., Harpole, W. S., Reichman, O. J., and

Tilman, D. (2003) Invasion, competitive dominance, and

resource use by exotic and native California grassland

species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the USA,100, 13384–9.

Segura, C., Feriche, M., Pleguezuelos, J. M., and Santos, X.

(2007) Specialist and generalist species in habitat use:

implications for conservation assessment in snakes.

Journal of Natural History,41, 2765–74.

Sekericioglu,C.H.,Ehrlich,P.R.,Daily,G.C.,Aygen,D.,

Goehring, D., and Sandi, R. F. (2002) Disappearance of

insectivorous birds from tropical forest fragments. Proceed-

ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,99,263–7.

Sekericioglu, C. H., Schneider, S. H., Fay, J. P., and Loarie,

S. R. (2008) Climate change, elevational range shifts, and

bird extinctions. Conservation Biology,22, 140–50.

SER (2004) The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration, version

2. Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy

Working Group.

Setälä, H. and McLean, M. A. (2004) Decomposition rate of

organic substrates in relation to the species diversity of

soil saprophytic fungi. Oecologia,139,98–107.

Sheehan, C., Kirwan, L., Connolly, J. and Bolger, T. (2006)

The effects of earthworm functional group diversity on

nitrogen dynamics in soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,

38, 2629–36.

Shmida, A. and Wilson, M. V. (1985) Biological determinants

of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography,12,1–20.

Shrestha, R. K. and Loomis, J. B. (2001) Testing a meta-

analysis model for benefit transfer in international out-

door recreation. Ecological Economics,39,67–83.

Shuler, R. E., Roulston, T. H., and Farris, G. E. (2005)

Farming practices influence wild pollinator populations

on squash and pumpkin. Journal of Economic Entomology,

98, 790–5.

Shultz, S., Bradbury, R. B., Evans, K. L., Gregory, R. D.,

and Blackburn, T. M. (2005) Brain size and resource

specialization predict long-term population trends in

British birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences,272, 2305–11.

Shvidenko, A., CooBarber, C., Persson, R., et al. (2005)

Forest and woodland systems. In R. Hassan, R. Scholes,

and N. Ash (eds.) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.

Current State and Trends –Findings of the Condition and

Trends Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Siemann, E. and Rogers, W. E. (2001) Genetic differences in

growth of an invasive tree species. Ecology Letters,4,

514–18.

Simberloff, D. and Dayan, T. (1991) The guild concept and

the structure of ecological communities. Annual Review

of Ecology and Systematics,22, 115–43.

Simberloff, D. and Stiling, P. (1996) How risky is biological

control? Ecology,77, 1965–74.

Simon, K. S., Townsend, C. R., Biggs, B. J. F., Bowden, W. B.,

and Frew, R. D. (2004) Habitat-specific nitrogen dynam-

ics in New Zealand streams containing native or invasive

fish. Ecosystems,7,777–92.

Simpson, R. D., Sedjo, R. A., and Reid, J. W. (1996) Valuing

biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research. Journal

of Political Economy,104(1), 163–85.

Skelton, L. E. and Barrett, G. W. (2005) A comparison of

conventional and alternative agroecosystems using

alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and winter wheat (Triticum

aestivum). Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,20,

38–47.

Smale, M., Hartell, J., Heisey, P. W., and Senauer, B. (1998)

The contribution of genetic resources and diversity to

wheat production in the Punjab of Pakistan. American

Journal of Agricultural Economics,80, 482–93.

Smedes, G. W. and Hurd, L. E. (1981) An empirical-test of

community stability –resistance of a fouling community

to a biological patch-forming disturbance. Ecology,62,

1561–72.

REFERENCES 345

Smith, M. D. and Knapp, A. K. (2003) Dominant species

maintain ecosystem function with non-random species

loss. Ecology Letters,6, 509–17.

Smith, R. S., Shiel, R. S., Bardgett, R. D., et al. (2003) Soil

microbial community, fertility, vegetation and diversity

as targets in the restoration management of a meadow

grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology,40,51–64.

Smith, T. M. and Smith, R. L. (2005) Elements of Ecology, 6th

edn. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco.

Smith, V. K. and Huang, J.-C. (1995) Can markets value air

quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property value

model. Journal of Political Economy,103, 209–27.

Smith, V. K. and Pattanayak, S. K. (2002) Is meta-analysis a

Noah’s ark for non-market valuation? Environmental and

Resource Economics,22, 271–96.

Smukler, S. M., Jackson, L. E., Murphree, L., Yokota, R.,

Koike, S. T., and Smith, R. F. (2008) Transition to large-

scale organic vegetable production in the Salinas Valley,

California. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment,126,

168–88.

Snelder, D. J. (2001) Forest patches in Imperata grassland

and prospects for their preservation under agricultural

intensiﬁcation in Northeast Luzon, The Philippines.

Agroforestry Systems,52, 207–17.

Snyder, R. E. and Chesson, C. P. (2004) How the spatial

scales of dispersal, competition, and environmental

heterogeneity interact to affect coexistence. American

Naturalist,164, 633–50.

Snyder, W. E. and Ives, A. R. (2003) Interactions between

specialist and generalist natural enemies: parasitoids,

predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology,84,91–107.

Snyder, W. E., Snyder, G. B., Finke, D. L., and Straub, C. S.

(2006) Predator biodiversity strengthens herbivore sup-

pression. Ecology Letters,9, 789–96.

Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Peh, K. S. H., Tan, H. T. W.,

Chazdon, R. L., Corlett, R. T., Lee, T. M., Colwell, R. K.,

Brook, B. W., Sekercioglu, C. H., and Bradshaw, C. J.

A. (2008) Correlates of extinction proneness in

tropical angiosperms. Diversity and Distributions,14,

1–10.

Sogin, M. L., Morrison, H. G., Huber, J. A., Welch, D. M.,

Huse, S. M., Neal, P. R., Arrieta, J. M. and Herndl, G. J.

(2006) Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the

underexplored ‘rare biosphere’.Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,103, 12115.

Sohngen, B. and Brown, S. (2006) The influence of con-

version of forest types on carbon sequestration and other

ecosystem services in the South Central United States.

Ecological Economics,57, 698–708.

Solan, M., Cardinale, B. J., Downing, A. L., Engelhardt,K. A. M.,

Ruesink, J. L., and Srivastava, D. S. (2004) Extinction

and ecosystem function in the marine benthos. Science,

306,1177–80.

Soldaat, L. L. and Auge, H. (1998) Interactions between

an invasive plant, Mahonia aquifolium, and a native

phytophagous insect, Rhagoletis meigenii.InU.Starﬁn-

ger, K. Edwards, I. Kowarik, and M. Williamson (eds.)

Plant Invasions: Ecological Mechanisms and Human

Responses, pp. 347–60. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden,

Netherlands.

Solé, R. V. and Montoya, J. M. (2001) Complexity and

fragility in ecological networks. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences,268,

2039–45.

Solow, R. M. (1974) Intergenerational equity and

exhaustible resources. Review of Economic Studies (Sym-

posium), 41,29–46.

Solow, R. M. (1986) On the intergenerational allocation of

exhaustible resources. Scandinavian Journal of Economics,

88, 141–9.

Soule, J. D. and Piper, J. K. (1992) Ecological crisis of

modern agriculture: damage and depletion. In J. D. Soule

and J. K. Piper (eds.) Farming in Nature’sImage,pp.11–30.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Spehn, E. M., Hector, A., Joshi, J., et al. (2005) Ecosystem

effects of biodiversity manipulations in European

grasslands. Ecological Monographs,75,37–63.

Srinivasan, U. T., Dunne, J.A., Harte, J., and Martinez, N.D.

(2007) Response of complex food webs to realistic extinc-

tion sequences. Ecology,88,671–82.

Srivastava, D. S. (2002) The role of conservation in

expanding biodiversity research. Oikos,98, 351–60.

Srivastava, D. S. and Vellend, M. (2005) Biodiversity–

ecosystem function research: Is it relevant to con-

servation? Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and

Systematics,36, 267–94.

Srivastava, D. S., Kolasa, J., Bengtsson, J., et al. (2004) Are

natural microcosms useful model systems for ecology?

Trends in Ecology and Evolution,19, 379–84.

Srivastava, D. S., Cardinale, B. J., Downing, A. L., et al.

(2009) Diversity has consistent top-down, but not

bottom-up, effects on decomposition. Ecology,90,

1073–1083.

Srivastava, D. S., Cardinale, B. J., Downing, A. L., et al.,

(2009) Diversity has stronger top-down than bottom-

up effects on decomposition. Ecology,90,1073–1083.

Stacey, D. A., Thomas, M. B., Blanford, S., Pell., J. K., Pugh,

C., and Fellowes, M. D. E. (2003) Genotype

and temperature influence pea aphid resistance to a fun-

gal entomopathogen. Physiological Entomology,28,75–81.

Stachowicz, J. J., Fried, H., Osman, R. W., and Whitlatch,

R. B. (2002) Biodiversity, invasion resistance, and

346 REFERENCES

marine ecosystem function. Reconciling pattern and

process. Ecology,83,2575–90.

Stampe, E. D. and Daehler, C. C. (2003) Mycorrhizal spe-

cies identity affects plant community structure and

invasion: a microcosm study. Oikos,100, 362–72.

Stanley, W. G. and Montagnini, F. (1999) Biomass and nutrient

accumulation in pure and mixed plantations of indigenous

tree species grown on poor soils in the humid tropics of

Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management,113,91–103.

Stark, S. C., Bunker, D. E., and Carson, W. P. (2006) A null

model of exotic plant diversity tested with exotic and

native species–area relationships. Ecology Letters,9,

136–41.

Starzomski, B. M. and Srivastava, D. S. (2007) Landscape

geometry determines community response to distur-

bance. Oikos,116, 690–9.

Statzner, B. and Moss, B. (2004) Linking ecological func-

tion, biodiversity and habitat: a mini-review focusing on

older ecological literature. Basic and Applied Ecology,5,

97–106.

Stauffer, R. C. (ed.) (1975) Charles Darwin’s Natural Selec-

tion, Being the Second Part of His Big Species Book

Written from 1856 to 1858. Cambridge University Press,

London.

Steenwerth, K. L., Jackson, L. E., Calderon, F. J., Strom-

berg, M. R., and Scow, K. M. (2003) Soil community

composition and land use history in cultivated and

grassland ecosystems of coastal California. Soil Biology &

Biochemistry,35, 489–500.

Steiner, C. F. (2001) The effects of prey heterogeneity and

consumer identity on the limitation of trophic-level

biomass. Ecology,82, 2495–506.

Steiner, C. F. (2005a) Impacts of density-independent

mortality and productivity on the strength and outcome

of competition. Ecology,86, 727–39.

Steiner, C. F. (2005b) Temporal stability of pond

zooplankton assemblages. Freshwater Biology,50,

105–12.

Steiner, C. F., Darcy-Hall, T. L., Dorn, N. J., Garcia, E. A.,

Mittelbach, G. G., and Wojdak, J. M. (2005a) The

influence of consumer diversity and indirect facilita-

tion on trophic level biomass and stability. Oikos,110,

556–66.

Steiner, C. F., Long, Z. T., Krumins, J. A., and Morin, P. J.

(2005b) Temporal stability of aquatic food webs: parti-

tioning the effects of species diversity, species compo-

sition and enrichment. Ecology Letters,8, 819–28.

Steiner, C. F., Long, Z. T., Krumins, J. A., and Morin, P. J.

(2006) Population and community resilience in multi-

trophic communities. Ecology,87, 996–1007.

Stephan, A., Meyer, A. H., and Schmid, B. (2000) Plant

diversity positively affects soil bacterial diversity in

experimental grassland ecosystems. Journal of Ecology,

88, 988–98.

Stephens, B. B., Gurney, K. R., Tans, P. P., et al. (2007)

Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake

from vertical proﬁles of atmospheric CO

.Science,316,

1732–5.

Stephens, D. W. and Krebs, J. R. (1986) Foraging theory.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Stern, N. (2006) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate

Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Stern, R. A., Eisikowitch, D., and Dag, A. (2001) Sequential

introduction of honeybee colonies and doubling their

density increases cross-pollination, fruit-set and yield in

‘Red Delicious’apple. Journal of Horticultural Science and

Biotechnology,76,17–23.

Stirling, G. and Wilsey, B. (2001) Empirical relationships

between species richness, evenness, and proportional

diversity. The American Naturalist,158, 286–99.

Stokstad, E. (2007) The case of the empty hives. Science,

316, 970–2.

Stone, G. N. (1994) Activity patterns of females of the

solitary bee Anthophora-plumipes in relation to tempera-

ture, nectar supplies and body-size. Ecological Entomol-

ogy,19, 177–89.

Stone, G. N., Gilbert, F., Willmer, P., Potts, S. G., Semida, F.,

and Zalat, S. (1999) Windows of opportunity and the

temporal structuring of foraging activity in a desert soli-

tary bee. Ecological Entomology,24,208–21.

Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Strappazzon, L., and Ha, A.

(2007) Auctioning biodiversity conservation contracts.

In A. Kontoleon, U. Pascual, and T. Swanson (eds.)

Biodiversity Economics: Principles, Methods and Applica-

tions, pp. 389–416. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Strauss, J. (1996) Implications of the TRIPS agreement in

the field of patent law. In K. Beier and G. Schricker (eds.)

From GATT to TRIPS –The Agreement on Trade Related

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. IIC Studies 18, Max

Planck Institute for Foreign and international Patent,

Strong, D. R. (1992) Are trophic cascades all wet? Differ-

entiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems.

Ecology,73, 747–54.

Stroup, R. (1995) The Endangered Species Act: making

endangered species the enemy. Political Economy

Research Center Policy Series PS-3.

Suding, K. N., Collins, S. L., Gough, L., et al. (2005)

Functional- and abundance-based mechanisms explain

diversity loss due to N fertilization. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,102, 4387–92.

Suding, K. N., Goldberg, D. E., and Hartman, K. M. (2003)

Relationships among species traits: separating levels of

REFERENCES 347

response and identifying linkages to abundance. Ecol-

ogy,84,1–16.

Suding, K. N., Lavorel, S., Chapin, F. S., Cornelissen, J. H. C.,

Diaz, S., Garnier, E., Goldberg, D., Hooper, D. U.,

Jackson, S. T., and Navas, M. L. (2008) Scaling envi-

ronmental change through the community-level: a trait-

based response-and-effect framework for plants. Global

Change Biology,14, 1125–40.

Sumner, D. A. and Boriss, H. (2006) Bee-economics and the

leap in pollination fees. Giannini Foundation of Agricul-

tural Economics Update,9,9–11.

Sutherland, G. D., Harestad, A. S., Price, K., and Lertzman,

K. P. (2000) Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terres-

trial birds and mammals. Conservation Ecology,4(1), 16.

Sutherland, W., Pullin, J., Dolman, P., et al. (2004) The need

for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology &

Evolution,19, 305–8.

Sutherst, R. W. (1993) Arthropods as disease vectors in a

changing environment. In J. V. Lake, G. R. Bock, and

K. Ackrill (eds.) Environmental Change and Human Health,

pp. 124–39. Wiley, New York.

Suttle, C. A. (2007) Marine viruses –major players in the

global ecosystem. Nature Reviews Microbiology,5, 801–12.

Sutton-Grier, A. E., Wright, J. P., McGill, B. Richardson, C.,

(in review). Environmental conditions influence plant

functional diversity effects on potential denitrification.

Ecology.

Swallow, S. K. (1990) Depletion of the environmental basis

for renewable resources: the economics of interdepen-

dent renewable and nonrenewable resources. Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management,19, 281–96.

Swan, C. M. and Palmer, M. A. (2005) Leaf litter diversity

leads to non-additivity in stream detritivore colonization

dynamics. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies,34,

19–38.

Swan, C. M. and Palmer, M. A. (2006) Composition of

speciose leaf litter alters stream detritivore growth,

feeding activity and leaf breakdown. Oecologia,147,

469–78.

Swanson, T. M. (ed.) (1995) The Economics and Ecology of

Biodiversity Loss. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Swart, J. A. A. (2003) Will direct payments help

biodiversity? Science,299, 1981.

Swift, M. J., Izac, A.-M. N., and van Noordwijk, M. (2004)

Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural

landscapes –are we asking the right questions? Agri-

culture Ecosystems and Environment,104, 113–34.

Symstad, A. J. and Tilman, D. (2001) Diversity loss,

recruitment limitation, and ecosystem functioning: les-

sons learned from a removal experiment. Oikos,92,

424–435.

Symstad, A. J., Siemann, E., and Haarstad, J. (2000) An

experimental test of the effect of plant functional group

diversity on arthropod diversity. Oikos,89, 243–53.

Symstad, A. J., Wienk, C. L., and Thorstenson, A. (2006)

Field-based evaluation of two herbaceous plant com-

munity sampling methods for long-term monitoring in

northern great plains national parks. Open-file report

2006–1282. U.S. Geological Survey, Helena MT.

Taki, H. and Kevan, P. G. (2007) Does habitat loss affect

the communities of plants and insects equally in

plant–pollinator interactions? Preliminary findings. Bio-

diversity and Conservation,16, 3147–61.

Ter Steege, H. and Hammond, D. S. (2001) Character

convergence, diversity, and disturbance in tropical rain

forest in Guyana. Ecology,82, 3197–212.

Teyssonneyre, F., Picon-Cochard, C., Falcimagne, R., and

Soussana, J. F. (2002) Effects of elevated CO

and cutting

frequency on plant community structure in a temperate

grassland. Global Change Biology,8, 1034–46.

Thébault, E. and Loreau, M. (2003) Food-web constraints

on biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,

100, 14949–54.

Thébault, E. and Loreau, M. (2005) Trophic interactions

and the relationship between species diversity and eco-

system stability. American Naturalist,166,95–114.

Thébault, E. and Loreau, M. (2006) The relationship

between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in food

webs. Ecological Research,21,17–25.

Thébault, E., Huber, V., and Loreau, M. (2007) Cascading

extinctions and ecosystem functioning: contrasting

effects of diversity depending on food web structure.

Oikos,116, 163–73.

Thies, J. E. and Devare, M. H. (2007) An ecological

assessment of transgenic crops. Journal of Development

Studies,43,97–129.

Thies, C. and Tscharntke, T. (1999) Landscape structure and

biological control in agroecosystems. Science,285,893–95.

Thies, C., Roschewitz, I., and Tscharntke, T. (2005) The

landscape context of cereal aphid–parasitoid interac-

tions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

272, 203–10.

Thomas, M. B. and Reid, A. M. (2007) Are exotic natural

enemies an effective way of controlling invasive plants?

Trends in Ecology & Evolution,22, 447–53.

Thompson, C., Beringer, J., Chapin, F. S., and McGuire, A. D.

(2004) Structural complexity and land-surface energy

exchange along a gradient from Arctic tundra to boreal

forest. Journal of Vegetation Science,15,397–406.

Thompson, J. N. (2006) Mutualistic webs of species. Sci-

ence,312, 372–3.

348 REFERENCES

Thompson, K., Askew, A. P., Grime, J. P., Dunnett, N. P.,

and Willis, A. J. (2005) Biodiversity, ecosystem function

and plant traits in mature and immature plant com-

munities. Functional Ecology,19, 355–8.

Thompson, R. M., Hemberg, M., Starzomski, B. M., and

Shurin, J. B. (2007) Trophic levels and trophic tangles:

the prevalence of omnivory in real food webs. Ecology,

88, 612–17.

Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Midgley, G., Lavergne, S., and

Rebelo, T. (2004) Relating plant traits and species dis-

tributions along bioclimatic gradients for 88 Leucaden-

dron taxa. Ecology,85, 1688–99.

Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Sykes, M. T., and Araujo, M. B.

(2006a) Using niche-based modelling to assess the

impact of climate change on tree functional diversity in

Europe. Diversity and Distributions,12,49–60.

Thuiller, W., Richardson, D. M., Rouget, M., Proches, S.,

and Wilson, J. R. U. (2006b) Interactions between envi-

ronment, species traits, and human uses describe pat-

terns of plant invasions. Ecology,87, 1755–69.

Tilman, D. (1982) Resource Competition and Community

Structure, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Tilman, D. (1988) Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and

Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ.

Tilman, D. (1994) Competition and biodiversity and spa-

tially structured habitats. Ecology,75,2–16.

Tilman, D. (1996) Biodiversity: population versus ecosys-

tem stability. Ecology,77, 350–63.

Tilman, D. (1997) Distinguishing between the effects

of species diversity and species composition. Oikos,

80,185.

Tilman, D. (1999a) Diversity and production in European

grasslands. Science,286, 1099–100.

Tilman, D. (1999b) The ecological consequences of changes

in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology,

80, 1455–74.

Tilman, D. (2000) What Issues in Ecology is, and isn’t.

Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America,81, 240.

Tilman, D. (2001) Functional diversity. In S. A. Levin (ed.)

Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity, pp. 109–20. Academic Press,

San Diego.

Tilman, D. and Downing, J. A. (1994) Biodiversity and

stability in grasslands. Nature,367, 363–5.

Tilman, D. and Kareiva, P. (eds.) (1997) Spatial Ecology.

Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Tilman, D. and Wedin, D. (1991) Plant traits and resource

reduction for five grasses growing on a nitrogen gradi-

ent. Ecology,72(2), 685–700.

Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L., and Nowak, M. A.

(1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt.

Nature,371,65–6.

Tilman, D., Wedin, D., and Knops, J. (1996) Productivity

and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grass-

land ecosystems. Nature,379, 718–20.

Tilman, D., Naeem, S., Knops, J., et al. (1997a) Biodiversity

and ecosystem properties. Science,278, 1865–9.

Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., and

Sieman, E. (1997b) The influence of functional diversity

and composition on ecosystem processes. Science,277,

1300–2.

Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L., and Thomson, K. T. (1997c)

Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical

considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the USA,94, 1857–61.

Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L., and Bristow, C. E. (1998)

Diversity–stability relationships: statistical inevitability

or ecological consequence? American Naturalist,151,

277–82.

Tilman, D., Reich, P. B., Knops, J. Wedin, D., Mielke, T.,

and Lehman, C. (2001) Diversity and productivity

in a long-term grassland experiment. Science,294,

843–5.

Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Lehman, C. (2005) Diversity,

productivity and temporal stability in the economies of

humans and nature. Journal of Environmental Economics

and Management,49, 405–26.

Tilman, D.,Hill, J., and Lehman, C. (2006a)Carbon-negative

biofuels fromlow-input high-diversity grassland biomass.

Science,314, 1598–600.

Tilman, D., Reich, P. B., and Knops, J. M. H. (2006b).

Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long

grassland experiment. Nature,441, 629–32.

Titus, J. H. and Tsuyuzaki, S. (2003) Influence of a non-

native invasive tree on primary succession at Mt. Koma,

Hokkaido, Japan. Plant Ecology,169, 307–15.

Tiunov, A. V. and Scheu, S. (2005) Facilitative interactions

rather than resource partitioning drive diversity–

functioning relationships in laboratory fungal commu-

nities. Ecology Letters,8, 618–25.

Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., et al.

(2001) Agricultural intensiﬁcation, deforestation, and the

environment: assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia.

In D. R. Lee and C. B. Barrett (eds.) Tradeoffs or

Synergies? Agricultural Intensiﬁcation, Economic Develop-

ment and the Environment, pp. 221–44. CAB-Interna-

tional, Wallingford.

Torchin, M.E., Lafferty, K. D., Dobson,A. P., McKenzie, V. J.,

and Kuris, A. M. (2003) Introduced species and their

missing parasites. Nature,421,628–30.

Traill, L. W., Bradshaw, C. J. A., and Brook, B. W. (2007)

Minimum viable population size: a meta-analysis of 30

years of published estimates. Biological Conservation,139,

159–66.

REFERENCES 349

Traveset, A. and Richardson, D. M. (2006) Biological

invasions as disruptors of plant reproductive mutual-

isms. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,21, 208–16.

Travis, J. M. J. (2003) Climate change and habitat

destruction: a deadly anthropogenic cocktail. Proceedings

of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 270, 467–73.

Treberg, M. A. and Husband, B. C. (1999) Relationship

between the abundance of Lythrum salicaria (Purple

Loosestrife) and plant species richness along the Bar

River, Canada. Wetlands,19, 118–25.

Trenbath, B. R. (1974) Biomass productivity of mixtures. In

N. Brady (ed.) Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press,

New York & London.

Treseder, K. and Vitousek, P. (2001) Potential ecosystem-

level effects of genetic variation among populations of

Metrosideros polymorpha from a soil fertility gradient in

Hawaii. Oecologia,126, 266–75.

Treton, C., Chauvet, E. and Charcosset, J. Y. (2004) Com-

petitive interaction between two aquatic hyphomycete

species and increase in leaf litter breakdown. Microbial

Ecology,48, 439–46.

Troumbis, A. Y. and Memtsas, D. (2000) Observational

evidence that diversity may increase productivity in

Mediterranean shrublands. Oecologia,125, 101–8.

Trumbore, S. (2000) Age of soil organic matter and soil

respiration: radiocarbon constraints on belowground C

dynamics. Ecological Applications,10, 399–411.

Truscott, A. M., Soulsby, C., Palmer, S. C. F., Newell, L.,

and Hulme, P. E. (2006) The dispersal characteristics of

the invasive plant Mimulus guttatus and the ecological

signiﬁcance of increased occurrence of high-ﬂow events.

Journal of Ecology,94, 1080–91.

Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter,

I., and Thies, C. (2005) Landscape perspectives on agri-

cultural intensification and biodiversity –ecosystem

service management. Ecology Letters,8, 857–74.

Tschirhart, J. (2000) General equilibrium of an ecosystem.

Journal of Theoretical Biology,203,13–32.

Turner, R. K. (1999) The place of economic values in

environmental valuation. In I. Batemen and K. Willis

(eds.) Valuing Environmental Preferences, pp. 17–41.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Turner, R. K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V.,

and Georgiou S. (2003) Valuing nature: Lessons learned

and future research directions. Ecological Economics,46,

493–510.

Turpie, J., Heydenrych, B., and Hassan, R. (2001)

Accounting for fynbos: A preliminary assessment of the

status and economic value of fynbos vegetation in the

Western Cape. In R. M. Hassan (ed.), Accounting for

Stock and Flow Values of Wooded Land Resources, Methods

and Results from South Africa. Centre for Environmental

Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA), University of

Pretoria.

Tylianakis, J. M. (2008) Understanding the web of life: the

birds, the bees, and sex with aliens. PloS Biology,6, e47,

224–8.

Tylianakis, J. M., Tscharntke, T., and Klein, A. (2006)

Diversity, ecosystem function, and the stability of

parasitoid–host interactions across a tropical habitat

gradient. Ecology,87, 3047–57.

Tylianakis, J. M., Tscharntke, T., and Lewis, O. T. (2007)

Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical

host–parasitoid food webs. Nature,445, 202–5.

Tylianakis, J. M., Rand, T. A., Kahmen, A., et al. (2008)

Resource heterogeneity moderates the biodiversity–

function relationship in real world ecosystems. PLoS

Biology,6, e122, 947–56.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) (2005) After

the Tsunami, Rapid Environmental Assessment Report.

UNEP, Nairobi, 22 February; http://www.unep.org/

tsunami/reports.

United Nations Environmental Programme (1999) Global

Environmental Outlook. Earthscan, London.

United Nations Environmental Program (2007) Global

Environmental Outlook 4. UNEP, New York.

United States Department of Agriculture National Agri-

cultural Statistics Service, USDA-NASS (2008) Alfalfa

Seed 2007. Available online at http://www.nass.usda.

gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/Press_

Releases_Crops/alfaseed.htm.

USDA (2006) Conservation Reserve Program General Sign-Up

33 Environmental Benefits Index. Fact sheet. USDA Farm

Service Agency.

USDA Forest Service (1997) Final Environmental Impact

Statement to Accompany the 1997 Revised Land and

Resource Management Plan, Arapaho and Roosevelt

National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland.US

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Region.

USDA Forest Service (2001a) Final Environmental Impact

Statement for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans

Revision. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Region.

USDA Forest Service (2001b) Final Environmental Impact

Statement to Accompany the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment. US Department of Agriculture Forest Ser-

vice, Paciﬁc Southwest Region.

USDA-NRCS (1997) National Range and Pasture Handbook.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Grazing Lands Insti-

tute, Washington, DC.

USDI National Park Service (2006a) Final General Manage-

ment Plan and Comprehensive River Management Plan/

350 REFERENCES

Environmental Impact Statement, Sequoia and Kings Canyon

National Parks, Middle andSouth Forks ofthe Kings River and

North Fork of the Kern River. US Department of the Interior,

National Park Service.

USDI National Park Service (2006b) Final General Man-

agement Plan Environmental Impact Statement, Badlands

National Park North Unit. US Department of the Interior,

National Park Service.

USDI National Park Service (2007) Final General Manage-

ment Plan/Wilderness Study/Environmental Impact State-

ment, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve.US

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Valentini, R., Matteucci, G., Dolman, A., et al. (2000) Res-

piration as the main determinant of carbon balance in

European forests. Nature,404, 861–5.

Valett, H. M., Crenshaw, C. L., and Wagner, P. F. (2002)

Stream nutrient uptake, forest succession, and biogeo-

chemical theory. Ecology,83, 2888–901.

Valiela, I., Bowen, J., and York, J. (2001) Mangrove forests,

one of the world’s threatened major tropical environ-

ments. BioScience,51, 807–15.

Valone, T. J. and Hoffman, C. D. (2003a) A mechanistic

examination of diversity–stability relationships in

annual plant communities. Oikos,103, 519–27.

Valone, T. J. and Hoffman, C. D. (2003b) Population sta-

bility is higher in more diverse annual plant communi-

ties. Ecology Letters,6,90–5.

Van Andel, J. and Aronson, J. (eds.) (2006) Restoration

Ecology: the New Frontier. Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Vandenberg, P. T., Poe, G. L., and Powell, J. R. (2001)

Assessing the accuracy of benefits transfers: evidence

from a multi-site contingent valuation study of

groundwater quality. In J. C. Bergstrom, K. J. Boyle, and

G. L. Poe (eds.) The Economic Value of Water Quality.

Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

van der Gast, C. J., Whiteley, A. S., Lilley, A. K., Knowles,

C. J., and Thompson, I. P. (2003) Bacterial community

structure and function in a metal-working fluid. Envi-

ronmental Microbiology,5, 453–61.

Van der Heijden, M. G. A., Boller, T., Wiemken, A., and

Sanders, I. R. (1998a) Different arbuscular mycorrhizal

fungal species are potential determinants of plant com-

munity structure. Ecology,79, 2082–91.

van der Heijden, M. G. A., Klironomos, J. N., Margot, U.,

Moutoglis, P., Streitwolf-Engel, R., Boller, T., Wiemken,

A., and Sanders, I. R. (1998b) Mycorrhizal fungal

diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem

variability and productivity. Nature,396,69–72.

van der Heijden, M. G. A., Bakker, R., Verwaal, J.,

Scheublin, T. R., Rutten, M., van Logtestijn, R., and

Staehelin, C. (2006) Symbiotic bacteria as a determinant

of plant community structure and plant productivity in

dune grassland. FEMS Microbiology Ecology,56, 178–87.

van der Heijden, M. G. A., Bardgett, R. D., and van

Straalen, N. M. (2008) The unseen majority: soil

microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity

in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters,11, 296–310.

Vandermeer, J. (1989) The Ecology of Intercropping. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Van Deynze, A. E., Sundstrom, F. J., and Bradford, K. J.

(2005) Pollen-mediated gene flow in California cotton

depends on pollinator activity. Crop Science,45,

1565–70.

Van Diggelen, R. (2006) Landscape: spatial interactions. In

J. Van Andel and J. Aronson (eds.) Restoration Ecology:

the New Frontier. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.

Van Kooten, J. and Bulte, E. H. (2000) The Economics of

Nature: Managing Biological Assets. Blackwell, Oxford.

van Kooten, G. C., Eagle, A. J., Manley, J., and Smolak, T.

(2004) How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of

carbon forest sinks. Environmental Science & Policy,7,

239–51.

van Noordwijk, M., Kuncoro, S., Martin, E., Joshi, L.,

Saipothong, P., Areskoug, V., and O’Connor, T. (2005)

Donkeys, carrots, sticks and roads to a market for

environmental services: rapid agrobiodiversity appraisal

for the PES –ICDP continuum. 2005. Paper presented at

the DIVERSTIAS First Open Science Conference, Oaxaca,

November.

Van Peer, L., Nijs, I., Reheul, D., and De Cauwer, B. (2004)

Species richness and susceptibility to heat and drought

extremes in synthesized grassland ecosystems: compo-

sitional vs physiological effects. Functional Ecology,18,

769–78.

van Ruijven, J., De Deyn, G. B., and Berendse, F. (2003)

Diversity reduces invasibility in experimental plant

communities: the role of plant species. Ecology Letters,6,

910–18.

Vasseur, D. A. and Gaedke, U. (2007) Spectral analysis

unmasks synchronous and compensatory dynamics in

plankton communities. Ecology 88, 2058–71.

Vasseur, D. A., Gaedke, U., and McCann, K. S. (2005) A

seasonal alternation of coherent and compensatory

dynamics occurs in phytoplankton. Oikos,110, 507–14.

Vaught, D. (2007) After the Gold Rush: Tarnished dreams in

the Sacramento Valley. The Johns Hopkins Univeristy

Press, Baltimore, MD.

Vázquez, D. P. and Aizen, M. A. (2004) Asymmetric spe-

cialization: a pervasive feature of plant–pollinator

interactions. Ecology,85, 1251–7.

Vázquez, D. P., Morris, W. F., and Jordano, P. (2005)

Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect

REFERENCES 351

of animal mutualists on plants. Ecology Letters,8,

1088–94.

Vehvilaäinen,H.,Koricheva,J.,Ruohomaki,K.,Johansson,T.,

and Valkonen, S. (2006) Effects of tree stand species com-

position on insect herbivory of silver birch in boreal forests.

Basic and Applied Ecology,7,1–11.

Vellend, M., Verheyen, K., and Jacquemyn, H. et al. (2006)

Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than a

century following habitat fragmentation. Ecology,87,

542–8.

Veltman, C. J., Nee, S., and Crawley, M. J. (1996) Correlates

of introduction success in exotic New Zealand birds.

American Naturalist,147, 542–57.

Venail, P. A., MacLean, R. C., Bouvier, T., Brockhurst, M. A.,

Hochberg, M. E., and Mouquet, N. (2008) Functional

diversity and productivity peak at intermediate levels of

dispersal in evolving metacommunities. Nature 452,

210–15.

Venter, J. C., Remington, K., Heidelberg, J.F., Halpern,A. L.,

Rusch, D., Eisen, J. A., Wu, D., Paulsen, I., Nelson, K. E.,

and Nelson, W. (2004) Environmental genome shotgun

sequencing of the Sargasso Sea. Science,304,66–74.

Vermeij, G. J. (2004) Ecological avalanches and the two

kinds of extinction. Evolutionary Ecology Research,6,

315–37.

Vesterdal, L., Ritter, E., and Gundersen, P. (2002) Change

in soil organic carbon following afforestation of former

arable land. Forest Ecology and Management,169, 137–47.

Viketoft, M., Palmborg, C., Sohlenius, B., Huss-Danell, K.,

and Bengtsson, J. (2005) Plant species effects on soil

nematode communities in experimental grasslands.

Applied Soil Ecology,30,90–103.

Vilà, M., Vayreda, J., Gracia, C., and Ibanez, J. J. (2003)

Does tree diversity increase wood production in pine

forests? Oecologia,135, 299–303.

Vilà, M., Vayreda, J., Gracia, C., and Ibanez, J. (2004)

Biodiversity correlates with regional patterns of forest

litter pools. Oecologia,139, 641–6.

Vilà, M., Inchausti, P., Vayreda, J., et al. (2005) Con-

founding factores in the observed productivity–diversity

relationship in forests. In M. Scherer-Lorenzen, C. Körner,

and E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The Functional Signiﬁcance of

Forest Diversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Vilà, M., Vayreda, J., Comas, L., Ibanez, J. J., Mata, T., and

Obon, B. (2007) Species richness and wood production: a

positive association in Mediterranean forests. Ecology

Letters,10, 241–50.

Vile, D., Shipley, B., and Garnier, E. (2006) Ecosystem pro-

ductivity can be predicted from potential relative growth

rate and species abundance. Ecology Letters,9,1061–7.

Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H., and Mouillot, D. (2008) New

multidimensional functional diversity indices for a

multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology,

89, 2290–301.

Vinebrooke, R. D., Schindler, D. W., Findlay, D. L., Turner,

M. A., Paterson, M., and Milis, K. H. (2003) Trophic

dependence of ecosystem resistance and species com-

pensation in experimentally acidified lake 302S

(Canada). Ecosystems,6, 101–13.

Vinebrooke, R. D., Cottingham, K. L., Norberg, J.,

Scheffer, M., Dodson, S. I., Maberly, S. C., and Sommer, U.

(2004) Impacts of multiple stressors on biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning: the role of species co-tolerance.

Oikos,104,451–7.

Violle, C., Navas, M. L., Vile, D., et al. (2007) Let the con-

cept of trait be functional! Oikos,116, 882–92.

Vitousek, P. M. (1990) Biological invasions and ecosystem

processes –towards an integration of population biol-

ogy and ecosystem studies. Oikos,57,7–13.

Vitousek, P. M. and Hooper, D. U. (1993) Biological

diversity and terrestrial ecosystem biogeochemistry. In

E.-D. Schulze and H. A. Mooney (eds.) Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Function. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Vitousek, P. and Walker, L. (1989) Biological invasion by

Myrica faya in Hawaii –plant demography, nirogen

nixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs,59,

247–65.

Vitousek, P. M., Turner, D. R., Parton, W. J., et al. (1994)

Litter decomposition on the Mauna Loa environmental

matrix, Hawaii: patterns, mechanisms and models.

Ecology,75, 418–29.

Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., and

Melillo, J. M. (1997) Human domination of Earth’s

ecosystems. Science,277,494–9.

Vitousek, P. M., Cassman, K., Cleveland, C., et al. (2002)

Towards an ecological understanding of biological

nitrogen ﬁxation. Biogeochemistry,57,1–45.

Vittor, A. Y., Gilman, R. H., Tielsch, J., Glass, G., Shields,

T., Lozano, W. S., Pinedo-Cancino, V., and Patz, J. A.

(2006) The effect of deforestation on the human-biting

rate of Anopheles darlingi, the primary vector of falci-

parum malaria in the Peruvian Amazon. American

Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene,74,3–11.

Vivrette, N. J. and Muller, C. H. (1977) Mechanism of

invasion and dominance of coastal grassland by

Mesembryanthemum-crystallinum.Ecological Monographs,

47, 301–18.

Vogelsang, K. M., Reynolds, H. L., and Bever, J. D. (2006)

Mycorrhizal fungal identity and richness determine the

diversity and productivity of a tallgrass prairie system.

New Phytologist,172, 554–62.

Vogt, R. J., Romanuk, T. N. and Kolasa, J. (2006) Species

richness–variability relationships in multi-trophic

aquatic microcosms. Oikos,113,55–66.

352 REFERENCES

Vojtech, E., Loreau, M., Yachi, S., Spehn, E. M., and

Hector, A. (2008) Light partitioning in experimental

grass communities. Oikos,117,1351–61.

Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., He, F. L., Hubbell, S. P., and

Maritan, A. (2005) Density dependence explains tree

species abundance and diversity in tropical forests.

Nature,438, 658–61.

von Canstein, H., Kelly, S., Li, Y., and Wagner-Döbler, I.

(2002) Species diversity improves the efficiency of mer-

cury-reducing biofilms under hanging environmental

conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,68,

2829–37.

Vörösmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., and Lammers, R.B.

(2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate

change and population growth. Science,289,284–8.

Wagner, M., and Loy, A. (2002) Bacterial community

composition and function in sewage treatment systems.

Current Opinion in Biotechnology,13, 218–27.

Walker, B. (1995) Conserving biological diversity through

ecosystem resilience. Conservation Biology,9, 747–52.

Walker, B. H. (1992) Biodiversity and ecological redun-

dancy. Conservation Biology,6,18–23.

Walker, B. H. and Langridge, J. L. (2002) Measuring

functional diversity in plant communities with mixed

life forms: a problem of hard and soft attributes. Eco-

systems,5, 529–38.

Walker, B., Kinzig, A., and Langridge, J. (1999) Plant

attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function:

the nature and significance of dominant and minor

species. Ecosystems,2,95–113.

Walker, J., Thompson, C. H., Reddell, P., and Rapport, D. J.

(2001) The importance of landscape age in influencing

landscape health. Ecosystem Health,7,7–14.

Walker, K. J.,Stevens, P. A., Stevens, D. P., Mountford, J. O.,

Manchester, S. J., and Pywell, R. F. (2004) The restoration

and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land

formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK.

Biological Conservation,119,1–18.

Walker, S. C., Poos, M. S., and Jackson, D. A. (2008)

Functional rarefaction: estimating functional diversity

from field data. Oikos,117, 286–96.

Wallace, J. B., Webster, J. R., and Meyer, J. L. (1995)

Influence of log additions on physical and biotic char-

acteristics of a mountain stream. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,52, 2120–37.

Walsh, P. D., Abernethy, K. A., Bermejo, M., Beyers, R., De

Wachter, P., Akou, M. E., Huljbregis, B., Mambounga, D. I.,

Toham, A. K., Kilbourn, A. M., Lahm, S. A., Latour, S.,

Maisels,F.,Mbina,C.,Mihindou,Y.,Obiang,S.N.,

Effa, E. N., Starkey, M. P., Telfer, P., Thibault, M,

Tutin, C. E. G., White, L. T. J., and Wilkie, D. S. (2003)

Catastrophic ape decline in western equatorial Africa.

Nature,422,611–14.

Wardle, D. A. (1998) A more reliable design for biodiver-

sity study? Nature,394, 30.

Wardle, D. A. (1999) Is ‘sampling effect’a problem for

experiments investigating biodiversity–ecosystem func-

tion relationships? Oikos,87, 403–7.

Wardle, D. A. (2002) Communities and Ecosystems: Linking

the Aboveground and Belowground Components. Princeton

University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Wardle, D. A. and Grime, J. P. (2003) Biodiversity and

stability of grassland ecosystem functioning. Oikos,100,

622–3.

Wardle, D. A. and Zackrisson, O. (2005) Effects of species

and functional group loss on island ecosystem proper-

ties. Nature,435, 806–10.

Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., and Nicholson, K. S. (1997a)

Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence

which does not support the view that enhanced species

richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos,79,

247–58.

Wardle, D. A., Zackrisson, O., Hörnberg, G., and Gallet, C.

(1997b) The influence of island area on ecosystem

properties. Science,277, 1296–9.

Wardle, D. A., Barker, G. M., Bonner, K. I., and Nicholson,

K. S. (1998) Can comparative approaches based on plant

ecophysiological traits predict the nature of biotic

interactions and individual plant species effects in

ecosystems? Journal of Ecology,86, 405–20.

Wardle, D. A., Nicholson, K. S., Bonner, K. I., and

Yeates, G. W. (1999) Effects of agricultural intensifi-

cation on soil-associated arthropod population

dynamics, community structure, diversity and tem-

poral variability over a seven-year period. Soil Biology

& Biochemistry,31,1691–706.

Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., and Barker, G. M. (2000a).

Stability of ecosystem properties in response to above-

ground functional group richness and composition.

Oikos,89,11–23.

Wardle, D. A., Huston, M. A., Grime, J. P., et al. (2000b)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function: an issue in ecol-

ogy. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America,81,

235–9.

Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., and Barker, G. M. (2002)

Linkages between plant litter decomposition, litter

quality, and vegetation responses to herbivores. Func-

tional Ecology,16, 585–95.

Wardle, D. A., Hornberg, G., Zackrisson, O., Kalela-

Brundin, M., and Coomes, D. A. (2003a) Long-term

effects of wildfire on ecosystem properties across an

island area gradient. Science,300, 972–5.

REFERENCES 353

Wardle, D. A.,Yeates, G. W., Barker, G. M., Bellingham, P. J.,

Bonner, K. I., and Williamson, W. M. (2003b) Island biol-

ogy and ecosystem functioning in epiphytic soil commu-

nities. Science,301,1717–20.

Wardle, D. A., Bardgett, R. D., Klironomos, J. N., Setala, H.,

van der Putten, W. H., and Wall, D. H. (2004a).Ecological

linkages between aboveground and belowground biota.

Science,304,1629–33.

Wardle, D. A., Walker, L. R., and Bardgett, R. D. (2004b)

Ecosystem properties and forest decline in contrasting

long-term chronosequences. Science,305, 509–13.

Warren, D. and Kraft, C. (2006) Invertebrate community

and stream substrate responses to woody debris

removal from an ice storm-impacted stream system, ny

USA. Hydrobiologia,568, 477–88.

Watling, J. I. and Donnelly, M. A. (2007) Multivariate

correlates of extinction proneness in a naturally frag-

mented landscape. Diversity and Distributions,13, 372–8.

Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H.,

Verado, D. J., and Dokken, D. J. (2000) Land Use, Land

Use Change, and Forestry. WMO/UNEP. Intergovern-

mental Panel on Climate Change.

Wätzold, F., Drechsler, M., Armstrong, C. W., et al. (2006)

Ecological-economic modeling for biodiversity man-

agement: potential, pitfalls, and prospects. Conservation

Biology,20(4), 1034–41.

Webb,S.L.,Dwyer,M.,Kaunzinger,C.K.,andWyckoff,P.H.

(2000) The myth of the resilient forest: case study of the

invasive Norway Maple (Acer platanoides). Rhodora,102,

332–54.

Weber, S. (1999) Designing seed mixes for prairie restora-

tions: revisiting the formula. Ecological Restoration,17,

196–201.

Weibull, A. C., Östman, O., and Granqvist, A. (2003)

Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of land-

scape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity Con-

servation,12, 1335–55.

Weigelt, A., Schumacher, J., Roscher, C., and Schmid, B.

(2008) Does biodiversity increase spatial stability in

plant community biomass? Ecology Letters,11, 338–47.

Weiher, E. and Keddy, P.-A. (1995a) The assembly of

experimental wetland plant communities. Oikos,73,

323–35.

Weiher, E. and Keddy, P.-A. (1995b). Assembly rules, null

models, and trait dispersion –new questions front old

patterns. Oikos,74, 159–64.

Weiher, E. andKeddy, P.-A. (eds.) (1999) Ecological Assembly

Rules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Weis, J. J., Cardinale, B. J., Forshay, K. J., and Ives, A. R.

(2007) Effects of species diversity on community bio-

mass production change over the course of succession.

Ecology,88, 929–39.

Weisbrod, B. A. (1964) Collective-consumption services of

individualized-consumption goods. Quarterly Journal of

Economics,LXXVIII, 471–7.

Weithoff, G. (2003) The concepts of ‘plant functional types’

and ‘functional diversity’in lake phytoplankton –a new

understanding of phytoplankton ecology? Freshwater

Biology,48, 1669–75.

Weitzman, M. (2000) Economic profitability versus eco-

logical entropy. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(1),

237–63.

Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (1992) People and Parks: Linking

Protected Area Management with Local Communities.

World Bank, Washington, DC.

Wenum, J., Buys J., and Wossink, A. (1999) Nature quality

indicators in agriculture. In F. Brouwer and B. Crabtree

(eds.) Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy.

CABI Publishers, Wallingford.

Wertz, S., Dégrange, V., Prosser, J. I., Poly, P.,Commeaux, C.,

Freitag, T., Guillaumaud, N., and Le Roux, X. (2006)

Maintenance of soil functioning following erosion of

microbial diversity. Environmental Microbiology,8,2162–9.

West, G. B., Brown, J. H., and Enquist, B. J. (1997) A gen-

eral model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in

biology. Science,276, 122–6.

Westoby, M. (1998) A leaf–height–seed (LHS) plant ecol-

ogy strategy scheme. Plant and Soil,199, 213–27.

Westoby, M., Falster, D. S., Moles, A. T., Vesk, P. A., and

Wright, I. J. (2002) Plant ecological strategies: some

leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics,33, 125–59.

Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharntke, T.

(2003) Mass-flowering crops enhance pollinator densi-

ties at a landscape scale. Ecology Letters,6, 961–5.

White, T. D., Suwa, G., and Asfaw, B. (1994) Aus-

tralopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid

from Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature,371, 306–12.

Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., and Wiebe, W. J. (1998)

Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA,95, 6578–83.

Whitham, T. G., Young, W. P., Martinsen, G. D., et al.

(2003) Community and ecosystem genetics: a conse-

quence of the extended phenotype. Ecology,84, 559–73.

Whittaker, R. H. (1975) Communities and Ecosystems, 2nd

edn. MacMillan, New York.

Widawsky, D., and Rozelle, S. (1998) Varietal diversity and

yield variability in Chinese rice production. In M. Smale

(ed.) Farmers, Gene Banks, and Crop Breeding, pp. 159–72.

Kluwer, Boston.

Widdicombe, S., Austen, M. C., Kendall, M. A., et al. (2000)

Bioturbation as a mechanism for setting and maintain-

ing levels of diversity in subtidal macrobenthic com-

munities. Hydrobiologia,440, 369–77.

354 REFERENCES

Wiegmann, S. M. and Waller, D. M. (2006) Fifty years of

change in northern upland forest understories: identity

and traits of ‘winner’and ‘loser’plant species. Biological

Conservation,129, 109–23.

Wilby, A. and Shachak, M. (2004) Shrubs, granivores and

annual plant community stability in an arid ecosystem.

Oikos,106, 209–16.

Wilby, A. and Thomas, M. B. (2002) Natural enemy

diversity and pest control: patterns of pest emergence

with agricultural intensification. Ecology Letters,5,

353–60.

Wilby, A. and Thomas, M. B. (2007) Diversity and pest

management in agroecosystems –some perspectives

from ecology. In D. I. Jarvis, C. Padoch, and H. D. Cooper

(eds.) Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems,

pp. 269–91. Columbia University Press, New York.

Wilby, A., Villareal, S. C., Lan, L. P., Heong, K. L., and

Thomas, M. B. (2005) Functional benefits of predator

species diversity depend on prey identity. Ecological

Entomology,30, 497–501.

Wilby, A., Lan, L. P., Heong, K. L., et al. (2006) Arthropod

diversity and community structure in relation to land

use in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Ecosystems,9, 538–49.

Wilkinson, B. H. (2005) Humans as geologic agents: a

deep-time perspective. Geology,33, 161–4.

Williams, S. L. (2001) Reduced genetic diversity in eelgrass

transplantations affects both population growth and

individual fitness. Ecological Applications,11, 1472–88.

Williams, J. L. and Crone, E. E. (2006) The impact of

invasive grasses on the population growth of anemone

patens, a long-lived native forb. Ecology,87, 3200–8.

Williams, N. M. and Kremen, C. (2007) Resource dis-

tributions among habitats determine solitary bee off-

spring production in a mosaic landscape. Ecological

Applications,17, 910–21.

Williams, N. M., Minckley, R. L., and Silveira, F. A. (2001)

Variation in native bee faunas and its implications for

detecting community changes. Conservation Ecology,5,7.

Williams, N. S. G., Morgan, J. W., McDonnell, M. J., and

McCarthy, M. A. (2005) Plant traits and local extinctions

in natural grasslands along an urban–rural gradient.

Journal of Ecology,93, 1203–13.

Williamson, M. and Fitter, A. (1996) The varying success of

invaders. Ecology,77, 1661–6.

Wilsey, B. J. and Polley, H. W. (2002) Reductions in

grassland species evenness increase dicot seedling

invasion and spittle bug infestation. Ecology Letters,5,

676–84.

Wilsey, B. J. and Polley, H. W. (2004) Realistically low species

evenness does not alter grassland species-richness–

productivity relationships. Ecology,85,2693–700.

Wilson, E. O. (1992) The Diversity of Life. Princeton Uni-

versity Press, Princeton.

Wilson, K. A., Underwood, E. C., Morrison, S. A., Klaus-

meyer, K. R., Murdoch, W. W., Reyers, B., Wardell-

Johnson, G., Marquet, P. A., Rundel, P. W., McBride, M.

F., Pressey, R. L., Bode, M., Hoekstra, J. M., Andelman,

S., Looker, M., Rondinini, C., Kareiva, P., Shaw, M. R.,

and Possingham, H. P. (2007) Conserving biodiversity

efficiently: what to do, where and when. PLoS Biology,5,

e223. doi:10. 1371/journal.pbio.0050223(Abstract)

Winfree, R. and Kremen, C. (2008) Are ecosystem services

stabilized by differences among species? A test using

crop pollination. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B,

published online ﬁrst.

Winfree, R., Williams, N., Gaines, H., Asher, J., and

Kremen, C. (2008) Wild bee pollinators provide the

majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in

New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Applied

Ecology,45, 793–802.

Winkelmann R. (2003) Econometric Analysis of Count Data,

4th edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Winkler, R. (2006a) Valuation of ecosystem goods and

services Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach. Eco-

logical Economics,59(1), 82–93.

Winkler, R. (2006b) Valuation of ecosystem goods and

services Part 2: Implications of unpredictable novel

change. Ecological Economics,59(1), 94–105.

Wirth, C. (2005) Fire regime and tree diversity in boreal

forests: Implications for the carbon cycle. In M. Scherer-

Lorenzen, C. Körner, and E.-D. Schulze (eds.) The

Functional Significance of Forest Diversity, Springer-

Verlag, Berlin.

Wohl, D. L., Arora, S., and Gladstone, J. R. (2004) Func-

tional redundancy supports biodiversity and ecosystem

function in a closed and constant environment. Ecology,

85, 1534–40.

Wojdak, J. M. (2005) Relative strength of top-down,

bottom-up, and consumer species richness effects on

pond ecosystems. Ecological Monographs,75, 489–504.

Wolszczan, A. and Frail, D. A. (1992) A planetary system

around the millisecond pulsar PSR1257þ12. Nature,355,

145–7.

Wood, D. and Lenné, J. M. (2005) ‘Received Wisdom’in

agricultural land use policy: 10 years on from Rio. Land

Use Policy,22,75–93.

Wood, S., Sebastian, K., and Scherr, S. J. (2000) Analysis of

Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems. International Food

Policy Research Institute and World Resources Institute,

Washington DC.

Woodcock, S., van der Gast, C. J., Bell, T., Lunn, M.,

Curtis, T. P., Head, I. M., and Sloan, W. T. (2007) Neutral

REFERENCES 355

assembly of bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiology

Ecology,62, 171–80.

Woodhead, T. M. (1906) Ecology of woodland plants in the

neighbourhood of Huddersfield. Linnean Journal of Bot-

any,37, 333–407.

Woodward, R. T. and Yong-Suhk Wui (2001) The eco-

nomic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Eco-

logical Economics,37(2), 257–70.

Wootton, J. T. (2005) Field parameterization and experi-

mental test of the neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature,

433, 309–12.

Wootton, J. T. and Emmerson, M. (2005) Measurement of

interaction strength in nature. Annual Review of Ecology

Evolution and Systematics,36, 419–44.

World Commission on Environment and Development

(1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., et al. (2006)

Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem ser-

vices. Science,314, 787–90.

Worm, B., Sandow, M., Oschlies, A., Lotze, H. K., and

Myers, R. A. (2005) Global patterns of predator diversity

in the open oceans. Science,309, 1365–9.

Wright, D. H., Gonzalez, A., and Coleman, D. C. (2007)

Changes in nestedness in experimental communities of

soil fauna undergoing extinction. Pedobiologia,50,

497–503.

Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., et al. (2004) The

worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature,428, 821–7.

Wright, J. P. and Flecker, A. S. (2004) Deforesting the riv-

erscape: the effects of wood on fish diversity in a

Venezuelan piedmont stream. Biological Conservation,

120, 439–47.

Wurst, S., Allema, B., Duyts, H., and van der Putten, W.

H. (2008) Earthworms counterbalance the negative

effect of microorganisms on plant diversity and

enhance the tolerance of grasses to nematodes. Oikos,

117(5), 718–18.

Yachi, S. and Loreau, M. (1999) Biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning in a fluctuating environment: the insurance

hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,

96, 1463–8.

Yodzis, P. (1984) How rare is omnivory. Ecology,65, 321–3.

Young, T. P. (2000) Restoration ecology and conservation

biology. Biological Conservation,92,73–83.

Young, T. P., Petersen, D. A., and Clary, J. J. (2005) The

ecology of restoration: historical links, emerging issues

and unexplored realms. Ecology Letters,8, 662–73.

Zak, D. R., Holmes, W. E., White, D. C., Peacock, A. D.,

and Tilman, D. (2003) Plant diversity, soil microbial

communities, and ecosystem function: are there any

links? Ecology,84, 2042–50.

Zavaleta, E. S. and Hulvey, K. B. (2004) Realistic species

losses disproportionately reduce grassland resistance to

biological invaders. Science,306, 1175–7.

Zavaleta, E.S., Shaw, M. R., Chiariello, N. R., Thomas, B. D.,

Cleland, E. E., Field, C. B., and Mooney, H. A. (2003)

Grassland responses to three years of elevated tempera-

ture, CO

, precipitation, and N deposition. Ecological

Monographs,73,585–604.

Zedler, J. B. (1993) Canopy architecture of natural and

planted cordgrass marshes –selecting habitat evaluation

criteria. Ecological Applications,3, 123–38.

Zhang, Q. G. and Zhang, D. Y. (2006b) Species richness

destabilizes ecosystem functioning in experimental

aquatic microcosms. Oikos,112, 218–26.

Zhang, Q. G. and Zhang, D. Y. (2006a) Resource avail-

ability and biodiversity effects on the productivity,

temporal variability and resistance of experimental algal

communities. Oikos,114, 385–96.

Zhang, Q. G. and Zhang, D. Y. (2007) Consequences of

individual species loss in biodiversity experiments: an

essentiality index. Acta Oecologica –International Journal

of Ecology,32, 236–42.

Zhu, Y., Chen, H., Fan, J., et al. (2000) Genetic diversity and

disease control in rice. Nature,406, 718–22.

356 REFERENCES

Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Techniques to Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions

Chapter

Jul 2023

Mankind has developed a technique to generate synthetic reactive nitrogen, which serves as a fertilizer to enhance food production. However, once reactive nitrogen molecules are formed, they become highly mobile and can persist in the environment for extended periods, leading to various negative consequences. One such consequence is the increased emission of nitrous oxide (N2O), a long-lived radiatively active greenhouse gas (GHG) with a molecular heat trapping effect approximately 310 times stronger than other gases, posing a significant environmental challenge. To address this issue, optimizing nitrogen (N) fertilization becomes crucial. The goal is to match the supply of nitrogen from fertilizers with the crop’s demand, thereby reducing excess soil nitrogen. By achieving this balance, the production of soil N2O can also be minimized. Several strategies can be employed to achieve this, such as using slow-release fertilizers that gradually release nutrients into the soil. Additionally, the use of chemical urease inhibitors (UI) and nitrification inhibitors (NI) can slow down the conversion of urea to NH4+, further reducing nitrogen loss. Another effective approach is to adopt a split application method, where fertilizer is applied multiple times throughout the crop cycle. This strategy aims to synchronize fertilizer application with the rapid nitrogen demand of the plants, thereby minimizing N2O emissions. Furthermore, foliar nitrogen fertilizer application can be employed, allowing the active absorption of nitrogen into the interior of the leaf blade through plasmodesmata, hydrophilic pores in the waxy cuticle of the leaf surface, and stomata distributed on the leaf surface. These mechanisms enable the efficient absorption of available nutrients. Moreover, the application of nanotechnology offers a promising solution by reducing the reactivity of nutrient inputs into the agricultural system without compromising productivity, holding a great potential for sustainable agriculture.KeywordsFertilizer applicationN2O emissionAgriculture and nutrient

A review of technological innovations and environmental impact mitigation

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

This paper explores the dynamic landscape of environmental impact mitigation, examining technological innovations and strategies across sectors. The review navigates through renewable energy advancements, circular economy principles, and nature-based solutions, emphasizing the nuanced relationship between technology and sustainability. While opportunities abound, challenges such as unintended consequences, economic trade-offs, and global disparities underscore the need for comprehensive, collaborative approaches. The synthesis of cutting-edge technologies, policy innovation, and public engagement emerges as a potent force for mitigating environmental impact. The conclusion envisions a future where innovation, informed by lessons learned, guides humanity toward sustainable coexistence with the planet. As we face the urgent imperative of environmental stewardship, this paper contributes insights to inform policies, inspire innovations, and foster a collective commitment to building a resilient and sustainable future.

Impact of Climate Change on Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects of Pesticides

Chapter

Jul 2023

Climate change refers to the long-term variations in weather conditions observed over a period of several decades, regardless of natural or human intrusions into a balanced earth’s ecosystem. Pesticides are extensively used for improving the quality and yield of commodities through the prevention, mitigation or eradication of pests, since decades. Climate change markedly affects the environmental fate of pesticides by modifying their partitioning process between the ecological compartments. It may reduce the pesticide residues on crops followed by increased susceptibility to pests and diseases, thus indicating the need for more frequent pesticide application during the forthcoming growing season. Likewise, the abundance of pests and pathogens associated with climate change will also necessitate the plentiful and repeated use of pesticides. Even the reintroduction and widespread use of restricted or banned pesticides have also been forecasted for some countries. Additionally, the existing pest management approaches might be ineffective for counteracting the rapidly growing pesticide resistance under warm climatic conditions. Pesticides are considered as one of the major environmental pollutants with proven ectotoxic effects that can be further potentiated by concurrent exposure to climate change. Therefore, the interaction of climate change and pesticide residues necessitates thorough explication to devise preventive and legislative measures for minimizing their combined ecotoxic impact. This chapter describes the environmental fate and ecotoxic effects of pesticides in the milieu of climate change.KeywordsClimate changePesticidesEnvironmental fateEcotoxicity

The functional role of biodiversity in the context of global change

Chapter

Feb 2014

Michael Scherer-Lorenzen

Forests hold a significant proportion of global biodiversity and terrestrial carbon stocks and are at the forefront of human-induced global change. The dynamics and distribution of forest vegetation determines the habitat for other organisms, and regulates the delivery of ecosystem services, including carbon storage. Presenting recent research across temperate and tropical ecosystems, this volume synthesises the numerous ways that forests are responding to global change and includes perspectives on: • the role of forests in the global carbon and energy budgets • historical patterns of forest change and diversification • contemporary mechanisms of community assembly and implications of underlying drivers of global change • the ways in which forests supply ecosystem services that support human lives. The chapters represent case studies drawn from the authors' expertise, highlighting exciting new research and providing information that will be valuable to academics, students, researchers and practitioners with an interest in this field.

Forests and the climate system

Chapter

Feb 2014

John Grace

Recent changes in tropical forest biomass and dynamics

Chapter

Full-text available

Feb 2014

Tree performance across gradients of soil resource availability

Chapter

Feb 2014

Forests in a greenhouse atmosphere: predicting the unpredictable?

Chapter

Feb 2014

Harald Bugmann

Traits, states and rates: understanding coexistence in forests

Chapter

Feb 2014

Floristic shifts versus critical transitions in Amazonian forest systems

Chapter

Feb 2014

Jérôme Chave

People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management With Local Communities.

Book

Full-text available

Jan 1992

Local adaptation enhances performance of common plant species

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2001
ECOL LETT

Geographic variation can lead to the evolution of different local varieties, even in widespread forage plants. We investigated the performance of common forage plants in relation to their genetic diversity and local adaptation at a continental scale using reciprocal transplants at eight ®eld sites across Europe over a 2-year period. The overall performance of the three test species, Trifolium pratense, Dactylis glomerata, Plantago lanceolata, was generally highest for plants replanted at their home site and declined with increasing transplanting distance. The three species differed in the ®tness components responsible for the increased overall performance and selection advantage at home sites. In addition to the effects of local adaptation, the majority of measured traits in all three species also showed ecotypic variation. However, no single ecotype of any species was able to outperform the locally adapted strains and do best at all sites, highlighting the importance of maintaining these plant genetic resources.

Biodiversity manipulation experiments: studies replicated at multiple sites

Article

Sep 2002

Biodiversity is usually defined in a general sense as a collective term for all biological differences at scales ranging from genes to ecosystems (e.g. Harper and Hawksworth 1994). This breadth of meaning is both a strength and weakness of the term, which poses many challenges in its study. In this chapter, we focus on the BIODEPTH project, presenting an overview of published analyses of the combined site datasets from Hector et al. (1999) and Loreau and Hector (2001), and re-examining the debate caused by the early results (Hector et al. 1999, 2000b; Huston et al. 2000). We present some additional material and new methods and analysis that we hope will clarify some points of debate and draw comparisons with the small number of other multi site biodiversity experiments that have been con ducted so far.

The Place of Economic Values in Environmental Valuation

Chapter

Nov 2001

R. Kerry Turner

Just as individuals have preferences regarding the various goods and services they purchase every day, they also hold preferences regarding public goods such as those provided by the natural environment. However, unlike private goods, environmental goods often cannot be valued by direct reference to any market price, which makes economic analysis of the costs and benefits of environmental change problematic. A number of methods have been developed to address this problem by attempting to value environmental preferences. Principal among these has been the contingent valuation (CV) method, which uses surveys to ask individuals how much they would be willing to pay or willing to accept in compensation for gains or losses of environmental goods. The period from the mid‐1980s has seen a massive expansion in use of the CV method, and from its original roots in the USA, through Europe and the developed world, the method has now reached worldwide application with a substantial proportion of current studies being undertaken in developing countries where environmental services are often the dominating determinant of everyday living standards. The method has simultaneously moved from the realm of pure academic speculation into the sphere of institutional decision analysis. However, the 1990s have witnessed a developing critique of the CV method, with a number of commentators questioning the underlying validity of its derived valuations. This volume reflects this time of heated debate over the CV method. It contains specially written papers from both sides of that debate, as well as from commentators who see it as an interesting experimental tool regardless of the question of absolute validity of the estimates made. The book is arranged in four main parts, covering theoretical (Part I) and methodological (Part II) aspects of the debate, presenting case studies from the USA, Europe (UK), and a developing country (Philippines) (Part III), and looking at the institutional frameworks within which CV studies are applied (Part IV).

The economic value of plant-based pharmaceuticals

Chapter

Oct 1995

The urgent need to ensure the conservation of biological diversity is now widely recognised, but practical measures to protect endangered species and habitats are still carried out on a small scale and generally limited to developed countries. This volume provides a detailed analysis of the economic and scientific rationales for biodiversity conservation. It discusses the justification for, and implementation of intellectual property rights regimes as incentive systems to encourage conservation. An interdisciplinary approach is used in the book, encompassing fields of study that include evolutionary biology, chemistry, economics and legal studies. The arguments are presented using the case study of the use of medicinal plants in the pharmaceutical industry. The book will be of interest and relevance to a broad spectrum of conservationists, from research students to policy makers.

11. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: The Role of Trophic Interactions and the Importance of System Openness

Chapter

Dec 2013

6 . Models of Ecosystem Reliability and Their Implications for the Question of Expendability

Chapter

Dec 2003

Shahid Naeem

Extinction, Recovery, and the Endangered Species Act

Chapter

May 2001

This collection of original essays by economists, biologists and political scientists has a common theme: that protecting species at risk while safeguarding social order is a policy challenge that entangles biology, politics, and economics. Nearly 1200 species are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973; only twelve have been removed from the list. Attempts at species recovery on public and private property lead the authors to examine the political realities that define the debate: who should pay the costs and receive the benefits, and how interest group behaviour affects the nature of endangered species protection. Although the ESA directs administrative agencies to list and protect species following scientific priorities, the collection addresses the economic choices that still must be confronted. These range from the protection potential of private markets to the design of incentive schemes to encourage conservation by private landowners.

Foraging Theory

Book