4.6 Article

Intraspecific genetic diversity and composition modify species-level diversity-productivity relationships

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 205, 期 2, 页码 720-730

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.13043

关键词

barley (Hordeum vulgare) genotypes; complementarity effects; diversity-productivity relationship; genetic diversity; net biodiversity effects; sampling effects; species diversity; weeds

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PA00P3_136474, PZ00P3_148261]
  2. Leonardo da Vinci programme from the European Commission
  3. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [AGL2008-05532-C02-01]
  4. Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analysis Services (RESAS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biodiversity regulates ecosystem functions such as productivity, and experimental studies of species mixtures have revealed selection and complementarity effects driving these responses. However, the impacts of intraspecific genotypic diversity in these studies are unknown, despite it forming a substantial part of the biodiversity. In a glasshouse experiment we constructed plant communities with different levels of barley (Hordeum vulgare) genotype and weed species diversity and assessed their relative biodiversity effects through additive partitioning into selection and complementarity effects. Barley genotype diversity had weak positive effects on aboveground biomass through complementarity effects, whereas weed species diversity increased biomass predominantly through selection effects. When combined, increasing genotype diversity of barley tended to dilute the selection effect of weeds. We interpret these different effects of barley genotype and weed species diversity as the consequence of small vs large trait variation associated with intraspecific barley diversity and interspecific weed diversity, respectively. The different effects of intra- vs interspecific diversity highlight the underestimated and overlooked role of genetic diversity for ecosystem functioning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据