4.8 Article

Scale-dependent changes in ecosystem temporal stability over six decades of succession

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 9, 期 40, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adi1279

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study rigorously tests the widely assumed tenet in ecology that ecosystem stability tends to increase over succession. The results show that temporal stability at the larger field scale (gamma stability) does increase over succession, but temporal stability at the local plot scale (alpha stability) does not. Increased spatial asynchrony among plots within fields increases gamma stability, while temporal increases in species stability and decreases in species asynchrony offset each other, resulting in no increase in alpha stability at the local scale. Furthermore, there is a notable positive diversity-stability relationship at the larger scale, with the increased gamma stability associated with increasing functional diversity later in succession.
A widely assumed, but largely untested, tenet in ecology is that ecosystem stability tends to increase over succession. We rigorously test this idea using 60-year continuous data of old field succession across 480 plots nested within 10 fields. We found that ecosystem temporal stability increased over succession at the larger field scale (gamma stability) but not at the local plot scale (alpha stability). Increased spatial asynchrony among plots within fields increased gamma stability, while temporal increases in species stability and decreases in species asynchrony offset each other, resulting in no increase in alpha stability at the local scale. Furthermore, we found a notable positive diversity-stability relationship at the larger but not local scale, with the increased gamma stability at the larger scale associated with increasing functional diversity later in succession. Our results emphasize the importance of spatial scale in assessing ecosystem stability over time and how it relates to biodiversity.

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

4.8
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