Productivity does not correlate with species and functional diversity in Australian reforestation plantings across a wide climate gradient. Issue 10 (2nd July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Staples, Timothy L.; Dwyer, John M.; England, Jacqueline R.; Mayfield, Margaret M.
• Editors: Simova, Irena
• Is Part Of: Global ecology & biogeography. Volume 28:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 1417
• Page End: 1429
• Publication Date: 2019-07-02
• Subjects: Australian woodlands -- biodiversity -- community‐weighted mean -- ecological restoration -- ecosystem function -- functional divergence -- functional evenness -- functional richness -- functional traits; Ecology -- Periodicals; Biogeography -- Periodicals; Biodiversity -- Periodicals; Macroevolution -- Periodicals; 577
• DOI: 10.1111/geb.12962
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1466-822X

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: Understanding biodiversity–ecosystem function (BEF) relationships in forest systems is crucial for effective forest management and restoration, yet testing these relationships is often limited by biased diversity patterns in forestry plantings (biased towards commercially valuable species) and uncontrollable diversity in mature natural forests. Multispecies reforestation plantings present a valuable opportunity to investigate BEF relationships in woody systems, especially across large environmental gradients. Location: Reforestation plantings across the arable region of Australia. Time period: 1951–2012. Major taxa studied: Three hundred and sixty‐four woody plant species. Methods: We examined relationships between productivity and diversity using inventory data from 977 plots in 386 multispecies reforestation plantings. Diversity was estimated using observed species richness and three functional diversity indices calculated from four functional traits: specific leaf area, wood density, seed mass and maximum attainable height. We modelled how plot‐level biomass accumulation (a productivity proxy) correlated with these diversity indices, as well as age since planting, plant density and three environmental variables: solar radiation, moisture availability and soil sand content. These models were fitted across Australia and, separately, within eight groups of plantings with similar environmental conditions. Results: We found no correlation between diversity and productivity, regardless of the diversity metric or spatial scale used (continent‐wide or within environment groups). Instead, productivity was best explained by local environmental conditions and plant density. Main conclusions: A positive relationship between diversity and productivity was not evident in planted forests across a wide range of Australian woodland and forest systems, at least in the first few decades of growth. Our findings suggest that the positive relationship between diversity and productivity commonly reported in experimental settings should not be assumed for all systems and conditions.