Abstract
Forest plays a vital role in the global biogeochemical cycles through a high rate of carbon sequestration and harboring biodiversity. However, local species diversity is declining while also becoming increasingly homogenized across communities. Although effects of local biotic processes (e.g., species α-diversity and stand structural heterogeneity) and environmental factors on aboveground biomass (AGB) have been widely tested, there is a huge knowledge gap for the effect of regional biotic processes (i.e., taxonomic and functional β-diversity) in forests. Here, we hypothesized that regional and local environmental factors along with biotic processes jointly regulate AGB through species shifts in tropical forests. Using piecewise structural equation modeling (pSEM), we linked climatic water availability, soil fertility, stand structural heterogeneity (either tree DBH inequality, height inequality, or stand density), species α-diversity, taxonomic or functional β-diversity (and its two components; β-turnover and β-richness), and AGB across 189 inventory plots in tropical forests of Sri Lanka. Soil fertility and climatic water availability shaped local and regional biotic processes. Stand structural heterogeneity promoted species α-diversity but declined β-diversity (but increased β-taxonomic turnover). Species α-diversity and stand structural heterogeneity promoted AGB whereas taxonomic and functional β-diversity declined (but β-taxonomic turnover increased) AGB. The relationships of AGB with species α-diversity and β-diversity varied from significant to nonsignificant positive depending on the specific combinations of stand structural heterogeneity metrics used. This study shows that local biotic processes could increase AGB due to the local and regional niche complementarity effect whereas the regional biotic processes could restrict AGB due to the regional selection or functional redundancy effect under favorable environmental conditions. We argue that biotic homogenization, as well as drought conditions, may have strong divergent impacts on forest functions and that the impacts of tree diversity loss may greatly reduce carbon sequestration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Forest is the main component of terrestrial ecosystems and plays a vital role in the global biogeochemical cycles through a high rate of carbon sequestration and harboring biodiversity (Pan et al. 2011; Boisvenue and Running 2006). Among different forest ecosystems, tropical forests store a large amount of carbon due to hyperdiverse and complex vegetation structure as well as longer growing seasons (Poorter et al. 2017; Cavanaugh et al. 2014; ter Steege et al. 2013). This situation is further complicated by multiple metrics of biodiversity and stand structural heterogeneity which could also explain aboveground biomass (AGB) differently in forest ecosystems (van der Plas 2019; Ali 2019). However, most of the previous studies have shown that climate and soil can also control the relationships of AGB with stand structural complexity and biodiversity in forest ecosystems (Poorter et al. 2017; Ali et al. 2019; Ratcliffe et al. 2017; Jucker et al. 2016). Although the effects of local biotic processes, such as taxonomic α-diversity (i.e., species richness within a forest plot) and stand structural heterogeneity (i.e., tree size inequality within a plot) on AGB have been evaluated across several forest ecosystems, few studies have attempted to explore the effects of regional biotic patterns, such as species β-diversity (i.e., species turnover and richness differences from species pool) in forests (Mori et al. 2018; van der Plas 2019).
An increasing number of studies have shown how local biotic processes can help to increase AGB in forest ecosystems (van der Plas 2019; Liang et al. 2016), and such understanding is much more important to recognize the influence of biodiversity loss in the context of global climate change (Naeem 2002). Three main ecological mechanisms have received great attention in explaining the observed higher AGB due to the local biotic processes in forests: the complementarity effect, the mass ratio effect, and the selection or sampling effect (van der Plas 2019; Ali 2019). The complementarity effect occurs when a highly biodiverse and structurally complex forest is better equipped to use limited resources more efficiently due to the variety of complementary traits of coexisting species (Lasky et al. 2014; Poorter et al. 2017; Ali et al. 2019). The mass ratio effect occurs when traits of the dominant species regulate AGB in forests due to the functional dominance or species-specific functional strategy, i.e., conservative or acquisitive (Prado-Junior et al. 2016). The selection or sampling effect occurs when a highly productive or functioning species is introduced into a community from a regional species pool that could be able to make use of the resources available in highly biodiverse and complex stand structural forests (Morin et al. 2011). Yet, much debate has been circled on the roles and functions of species α-diversity and stand structural heterogeneity in maintaining AGB in forests (van der Plas 2019; Ali 2019), but so far, relatively less debate has been focused on the roles and functions of β-diversity (but see van der Plas et al. 2016; Silva Pedro et al. 2016). For example, abiotic heterogeneity is typically higher at a large scale as compared to a small scale, and thus, different species under different abiotic conditions may shape AGB through different ecological mechanisms (Chu et al. 2019; Loreau et al. 2001; Poorter et al. 2017). The taxonomic and functional β-diversity could enhance our understanding of the ecological mechanisms driving variations in biodiversity and their influences on AGB (Mori et al. 2018). Focusing on regional biotic processes could be especially important in highly biodiverse and complex stand structural tropical forest communities that are probably subjected to regional environmental fluctuations and local stand structural heterogeneity (Ehbrecht et al. 2021; ter Steege et al. 2013).
Regional biotic patterns (e.g., taxonomic and functional β-diversity) are usually dependent on local and regional environmental factors which are controlled by the spatial scale and extent (Mori et al. 2018). However, regional environmental factors (e.g., climate) not only determine the regional-scale patterns of species distribution (i.e., β-diversity) but also affect the local-scale i.e., α-diversity patterns (van der Plas et al. 2016). In addition, local environmental factors (e.g., availability of soil fertility) and stand structural heterogeneity can shape β-diversity because patterns of α-diversity are usually controlled by local-scale community assembly processes (Villa et al. 2021; Ali 2019; van der Plas et al. 2016). However, β-diversity can be partitioned into two distinct components, i.e., (1) turnover which reflects species replacement between sites along the environmental gradients; and (2) richness or nestedness which reflects species loss or gain by triggering the biota of species-poor sites to become biota’s subsets at species-rich sites (Legendre 2014; Mori et al. 2018). On the one hand, it is usually expected that dominant species are contributing to the β-richness across communities, thereby shaping forest functions (e.g., AGB) due to the selection effect (i.e., the mass ratio effect) at larger spatial scales (Mori et al. 2018). On the other hand, different species are contributing to β-turnover under different environmental conditions by complementing each other for the efficient utilization of the available resources, and as a result, increasing the number of niche spaces occupied across communities (Hautier et al. 2018). Therefore, β-turnover can be attributed to the niche complementarity effect for shaping forest functions at larger spatial scales (Mori et al. 2018). However, functionally dominant species may also vary across communities, and hence, β-turnover may shape AGB due to the selection or mass ratio effect rather than the niche complementarity effect at smaller spatial scales (Hector and Bagchi 2007). In other words, local and regional environmental factors can cause local and regional biotic heterogeneity within and across communities. Therefore, the by chance inclusion of highly functioning or productive species may increase AGB due to the selection effect, or a wide range of species having different functional traits can increase AGB because of the niche complementarity effect at both larger and smaller spatial scales (Hector and Bagchi 2007; Mori et al. 2018; van der Plas 2019).
Environmental factors and stand structural heterogeneity can influence AGB not only directly but also through induced changes in local biotic processes (Poorter et al. 2017; Ali et al. 2019). While the majority of previous studies reported the direct positive effects of stand structural heterogeneity on AGB and productivity, some have also found negative or non-significant effects (Ali 2019). However, an increasing number of studies showed that high inequality in stand density and tree-size dimension can increase AGB directly or indirectly via taxonomic α-diversity due to the high canopy packing, which allows interactions between component species and their individuals in a community to capture and use light efficiently (Ali et al. 2020; Jucker et al. 2016; Chiang et al. 2016). This ecological mechanism provides additional support to the species complementarity processes, i.e., forest communities having higher levels of tree stratification and canopy packing can enhance the functioning of forests due to the efficient and complementarity uses of limited resources (Yachi and Loreau 2007; Williams et al. 2017; Ali 2019). As such, a growing body of evidence showed that climatic water availability increases AGB directly as well as through induced changes in local biotic processes, whereas several inconsistencies existed across studies on the influence of soil fertility (Poorter et al. 2017; Ali et al. 2019; Bordin et al. 2021; Chiang et al. 2016; Yuan et al. 2019). Nevertheless, the general understanding is that AGB increases with the greater climatic water availability due to the longer growing season length, i.e., favorable climatic condition for plant growth, because it is plausible that drought condition increases tree mortality and shapes species distribution patterns (Toledo et al. 2012; Engelbrecht et al. 2007). Also, the general notion is that soil fertility increases AGB due to the higher availability of soil resources that are important for plant growth, but it can also induce higher mortality rates due to strong interspecific competition for acquiring similar resources (Yuan et al. 2019; Quesada et al. 2012). Our understanding, however, is limited to the effects of regional and local environmental factors on local biotic processes and then on AGB as compared to the regional biotic processes.
In this study, we aim to tease apart the combined effects of environmental conditions, stand structural heterogeneity, taxonomic α-diversity, and (either taxonomic or functional) β-diversity (and its associated components) on AGB in tropical forests (Fig. 1). Using the forest inventory datasets across 189 inventory plots, along with environmental factors in the tropical forest of Sri Lanka, we address the following research questions and hypothesis through the use of piecewise structural equation modeling (pSEM; see a conceptual model in Fig. 1b). (1) How do local (i.e., soil fertility) and regional (i.e., climatic water availability) environmental factors influence local (stand structural heterogeneity and species α-diversity) and regional (β-diversity) biotic patterns, and AGB? (2) How does stand structural heterogeneity through changes in tree-size dimension inequity and stand density control the relationships of AGB with local and regional biotic processes? (3) How do regional biotic processes through changes in taxonomic and functional β-diversity and their two associated components influence the relationships of AGB with local biotic processes? and (4) What is the main biotic driver or processes—local (i.e., α-diversity and stand structural heterogeneity) or regional (β-diversity)—of AGB? We hypothesize that regional and local environmental factors along with biotic processes jointly regulate AGB through species shifts in tropical forests.
Materials and methods
Study area and forest plots
This study was carried out across the central and southern regions of Sri Lanka, covering major climatic zones, i.e., dry, intermediate, and wet. Sri Lanka’s climate is influenced by two major tropical monsoon spells, i.e., the first from May to September and the second from December to February. Vegetation in the studied region mainly comprises dry to wet tropical forests, with a mean annual temperature and precipitation ranging from 15 °C − 28 °C and 1250 − 5100 mm, respectively, depending upon the regional topography. The soil in the region is generally primarily acidic with a pH ranging from 4.7–6.4 (Mattsson et al. 2016; Ali et al. 2020).
Forest inventory datasets across 189 forest plots were collected by stratified randomly selecting forest plots while covering possible gradients in both local and regional environmental factors (Fig. S1). To do so, we considered different forest types based on the topography and climatic water availability. Forests in the studied region have been disturbed previously by natural and anthropogenic activities, resulting in undisturbed, degraded, and secondary forests. To cater for heterogeneity in present forest quality, we excluded severely deteriorated forest plots, and hence, considered those plots with limited observations of current disturbances or with secondary preserved status. Tree individuals with a diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥ 3 cm were measured within each plot (which varies between 0.0225 and 0.2000 ha). By doing so, we measured tree height, DBH, and name of the tree species, and tried our best to identify the major part of the tree individuals (i.e., approximately 90%) within each plot by following standard forest inventory research protocols (Cornelissen et al. 2003). In total, 15,451 stems of 354 species have been measured during inventory across 189 forest plots.
Environmental factors—climatic water availability and soil fertility
In this study, we used climatic moisture index (CMI, mm yr−1) and soil cation exchange capacity (CEC: cmol kg−1) as the best indicators of climate (regional) and soil (local) conditions, respectively. Most of the previous studies in tropical regions including Sri Lankan forests have suggested that CMI and soil CEC are the best predictors of forest diversity, structure, and functions (Poorter et al. 2017; Ali et al. 2020; O'Brien et al. 2000). We retrieved mean annual potential evapotranspiration and precipitation data at a spatial resolution of the 30 s for each forest plot using the Global ET0 Climate database v2 (Trabucco and Zomer 2019) and the WorldClim database (Fick and Hijmans 2017). We, then, quantified CMI by subtracting mean annual potential evapotranspiration from mean annual precipitation to constitute the climatic water availability. Higher values of CMI indicate higher plant water availability (Hogg 1997). For soil CEC, Regridded Harmonized World Soil Database v1.2 was used to extract the values at two soil depths, i.e., 0 − 30 and 30 − 100 cm, at 0.05-degree spatial resolution, and then, the mean CEC value was used for each forest plot (Wieder 2014). We extracted and processed CMI and CEC values using the rgdal, raster, sp, and ncdf4 packages in R statistical software.
Stand structural heterogeneity, tree species α-diversity, β-diversity, and AGB
Stand structural heterogeneity was quantified based on three simple indices, i.e., stand density (SD), tree height inequality (CVH), and DBH inequality (CVD). Stand density was defined as the number of tree individuals per hectare (i.e., SD ha−1). We quantified plot-wise individual tree height and DBH inequality through the coefficient of variance (i.e., CV = standard deviation divided by mean multiplied by 100, i.e., represented in percentage) as a proxy for tree-size dimension inequality representing the realized tree-sizes differences. We used stand density, tree height inequality, and DBH inequality as the measures of stand structural heterogeneity because these indices have been recognized as the potential predictors of AGB through canopy packing and niche differentiation mechanisms in forests (Ali 2019; Chiang et al. 2016; Clark 2010; Yachi and Loreau 2007). Species α-diversity was quantified based on species rarefication curves instead of counting the observed species because rarefaction counts species richness based on the structure of rarefaction curves. Also, the rarefied species index solves the multicollinearity issues, particularly by addressing the confounding influences of stand density and plot size on species diversity patterns (Poorter et al. 2017).
The species taxonomic and functional β-diversity indices were calculated based on species abundance and standardized functional trait values by computing the pairwise differences between a specific forest plot and the regional species pool (i.e., the pooled data representing gamma diversity; γ-diversity; see Fig. 1a), through the Jaccard index, using the beta function from the BAT package (Cardoso et al. 2015). The functional β-diversity was quantified using the mean trait values of two important plant functional traits (i.e., plant maximum height and wood density) representing species growth strategies. The beta function results in two distance metrics for each taxonomic and functional β-diversity pattern i.e., partitioning of β-diversity into species turnover (βTover) and species richness (βRich), whereas β-diversity in total (βTot) is the sum of βTover and βRich. The beta turnover reflects species replacement in a specific plot, whereas β-richness or β-nestedness reflects species loss or gain (richness differences) by a specific plot as a result of biotic or environmental filtering (Cardoso et al. 2014; Podani and Schmera 2011; Legendre 2014; Mori et al. 2018). Therefore, partitioning of the total β-diversity into β-turnover and β-richness is much important for understanding the influences of regional biotic processes on AGB (Mori et al. 2018).
The AGB of an individual tree was quantified using the broadly-used pantropical allometric equation (Eq. 1):
that uses tree DBH, height (H), and species’ wood density (ρ) as the model input parameters (Chave et al. 2014). We used the total AGB of all individual trees present within each forest plot as the response variable (i.e., AGB in megagram per hectare; Mg ha−1) because it best indicates the total aboveground carbon stock in the woody parts of forests. The species’ wood densities were retrieved from the renowned worldwide wood density databases (Reyes et al. 1992; Zanne et al. 2009).
Statistical analyses
We used pSEM to test the hypothesized paths and related ecological theories to answer the research questions and hypothesis in a single model, by combined effects of environmental conditions, stand structural heterogeneity, species α- and β-diversity patterns (either taxonomic or functional) on AGB. However, we used boxplots to assess the differences in variables between plot sizes. In doing so, we grouped plot sizes into small (i.e., ranging between 0.0225 and 0.0625 ha; 72 plots) and large (i.e., 0.09 to 0.20 ha; 117 plots) plots. After this, we tested two types of pSEMs, i.e., with and without plot size as a random effect, for the purpose to explore the confounding effects of plot size on ecological mechanisms, drivers, and effects. Considering the fixed conceptual model (Fig. 1b), we tested a total of 36 pSEMs with (18 pSEMs) and without (18 pSEMs) plot size as a random effect using different combinations of three indices of stand structural heterogeneity (i.e., either stand density or tree height inequality or DBH inequality) with each of three indices of either taxonomic or functional β-diversity (i.e., either βTot or βRich or βTover), while considering the consistent fixed effects of CMI, CEC and species α-diversity.
For the assessment of model fit to the data, we used two important statistical parameters, i.e., Fisher’s C statistic and P-value of the pSEM (i.e., P > 0.05 suggests that the fit of pSEM is reasonable). We excluded correlations between CMI and soil CEC as well as correlations between α- and β-diversity across all models to improve the model fit and to avoid the statured or over-fitted models. However, we evaluated the confounding effects of excluding and including some paths between variables using the directional separation test, but we did not find any strong change in the fit of pSEM. We used the multiple linear (mixed-effect) regression models to construct the pSEM using the piecewiseSEM package (Lefcheck 2016). For each dependent or endogenous variable in pSEM, we calculated the variance explained by fixed predictors (i.e., R2m), as well as variance explained by both fixed and random factors (i.e., R2c; for pSEMs with plot size as a random effect). Additionally, we quantified the relative contribution of CMI, CEC, stand structural heterogeneity, and taxonomic α- and β-diversity to AGB within each tested pSEM model, and then, the relative contributions of predictors to AGB were visually compared using pie charts.
To complement the results from pSEMs, we also quantified principal component analysis (PCA) to graphically explain the gradients of local and regional environmental factors as well as local and regional biotic processes, and their correlations with AGB, by using the factoextra and FactoMineR packages (Husson et al. 2016). In addition, we assessed the bivariate relationships between predictors and AGB using Pearson’s correlations and simple linear regression models. Before statistical analyses (except boxplots and PCA), all continuous variables were transformed by natural logarithm and then standardized at a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 to improve linearity and normality as well as to compare the effect sizes of predictors on AGB in each and across pSEMs (Zuur et al. 2009). All ecological and statistical analyses were conducted in R 3.6.0 and RStudio (R Development Core Team 2019).
Results
The pSEMs (with plot size as a random effect) showed that tree height inequality and stand density rather than DBH inequality were positively controlled by CMI (effect size = 0.00 to 0.35), but negatively controlled by soil CEC (effect size = 0.01 to − 0.18; Figs. 2, 3, S3 and S4). Species α-diversity was positively controlled by both CMI (effect size = 0.28 to 0.49) and soil CEC (effect size = 0.37 to 0.42) in all tested pSEMs (Figs. 2, 3, S3 and S4). The effects of CMI and CEC on taxonomic and functional β-diversity indices (i.e., total, richness and turnover) were dependent on the combination of stand structural heterogeneity index (Figs. 2, 3, S3 and S4). In addition, species α-diversity was positively controlled by stand density (effect size = 0.31) and tree height inequality (effect size = 0.22) but not significantly controlled by tree DBH inequality (Figs. 2, 3, S3 and S4). In contrast, both taxonomic and functional β-diversity indices were negatively controlled by stand structural heterogeneity (effect size = − 0.25 to − 0.82; Figs. 2, 3, S3d − f, S4a − f), but taxonomic β-turnover was positively (effect size = 0.23 to 0.65) controlled in all tested pSEMs (Figs. S3a-c).
The pSEMs (with plot size as a random effect) showed that AGB increased directly with increasing CMI (effect size = 0.15 to 0.39) and stand structural heterogeneity indices (effect size = 0.42 to 0.60). Importantly, taxonomic β-diversity and β-richness decreased but taxonomic β-turnover increased AGB directly (Figs. 2, 4 and S3), whereas functional β-diversity indices possessed direct negative effects on AGB (Figs. 3, 4 and S4). However, species α-diversity increased AGB (effect size = 0.12 to 0.18) directly in the pSEMs when it was included in combinations with tree DBH inequality and either taxonomic or functional β-diversity (Figs. 2a, 3a, S3a, S3d, S4a, and S4d). Moreover, species α-diversity did not significantly increase AGB (effect size = 0.03 to 0.12) directly in the pSEMs when it was included in combinations with either tree height inequality or stand density as well as with either taxonomic or functional β-diversity (Figs. 2 b, c, 3 b, c, 4, S3b,c,e,f, and S4b,c,e). Soil CEC did not significantly influence AGB (effect size = − 0.09–0.05) directly in all tested pSEMs (Figs. 2, 3, 4, S3 and S4; Tables S2 − S19).
The relative contributions (see pie charts in Figs. 2, 3, S3 and S4) indicated that CMI was the main limiting abiotic factor (relative contribution = 14% to 29%) whereas stand structural heterogeneity (either stand density or tree DBH inequality or height inequality) was the main influencing biotic factor (relative contribution = 41% to 57%) of AGB. Although taxonomic (i.e., 8% to 30%) and functional β-diversity (i.e., 8% to 18%) increased AGB, the contribution was relatively less as compared to CMI and stand structural heterogeneity. In addition, PCA results showed that AGB was controlled by both local and regional biotic processes along the PC1 axis whereas it was oppositely controlled by CMI (positively) and CEC (negatively) along the PC2 axis. Although the random effect of plot size was relatively less, we noted that local and regional biotic processes, as well as environmental factors, were distributed at two opposite extremes along the PCA axis (Fig. 5).
In addition, the boxplot analysis showed that there were significant differences for most of the tested variables between small and large plots, but apparent differences were noted in a few variables only (Fig. S2). As such, the tested pSEMs (with plot size as a random effect) showed that most of the variance in predictors and response variables was explained by fixed effect (i.e., pathways) as compared to the random effect (Figs. 2, 3, 4, S3 and S4). Likewise, the comparison of direct effects of predictors on AGB based on pSEMs with (Figs. 2, 3, 4, S3 and S4) and without (Figs. S6 − S10; Tables S20 − 37) plot size as a random effect showed that plot size as a random effect had no strong role in modulating the ecological mechanisms, even though explained variance varied a little bit in some cases (Fig. S5). The bivariate relationships and Pearson’s correlation matrix for supporting the results from pSEMs are provided in Figs. S11 − S12 and Fig. S13, respectively.
Discussion
In this study, we found that environmental factors shaped both local (i.e., taxonomic α-diversity and stand structural heterogeneity) as well as regional biotic processes, mainly through changes in functional and taxonomic β-diversity patterns. Moreover, we found that stand structural heterogeneity controlled local as well as regional biotic processes, mainly through changes in both taxonomic and functional β-diversity. Interestingly, local biotic processes (particularly stand structural heterogeneity) and climatic water availability rather than soil fertility increased AGB but regional biotic processes declined AGB in studied tropical forests. It is noteworthy that taxonomic β-turnover increased but taxonomic β-richness declined AGB whereas both functional β-turnover and β-richness declined AGB in studied tropical forests. However, the fact could be that functional β-turnover as compared to β-richness across studied plots showed less variation in data values (see Fig. S2 and Table S1), indicating that functional β-richness is the important component for explaining the negative effects of functional β-diversity on AGB due to the regional selection effect and functional redundancy effect along climate and soil gradients in the studied tropical forests. Thus, our study significantly contributes to the current less debated topic on the influences of local and regional biotic processes on forest functions, i.e., AGB in our study (Mori et al. 2018; van der Plas et al. 2016).
We found that species α-diversity increased with increasing climatic water availability and soil fertility in all tested pSEMs, indicating that local biotic processes are positively controlled by species-energy relationship and resource availability which might be due to the longer growing season’s length and soil nutrient availability (Toledo et al. 2012; Poorter et al. 2017; Currie 1991). Local species interactions increase in a positive way when coexisting species are using the available limited resources through local biotic complementarity ways by enhancing niche differentiation and facilitation (Mori et al. 2018; Yachi and Loreau 2007). However, the observed significant positive effects of climatic water availability and soil fertility on functional β-diversity as compared to taxonomic β-diversity might be attributable to the reason that variations in functional traits could shape community assembly processes better than taxonomic identification (Kraft et al. 2008; MacArthur and Levins 1964; Tilman 2004). In addition, we found that climatic water availability increased stand density and tree height inequality but soil fertility possessed negligible influences, indicating that a longer growing season length or less drought conditions increase stand structural heterogeneity in tropical forests (Corlett 2016; Phillips et al. 2010). However, stand structural heterogeneity could control local species complementarity through canopy packing and inequality in tree-size dimensions because different-sized trees have different requirements for light, water, and soil resources (Ali 2019; Clark 2010). As such, we found positive relationships of species α-diversity with tree height inequality and stand density which might be attributable to the local niche differentiation effect, i.e., higher stand density through the coexistence of shade-tolerant and light-demanded species (Williams et al. 2017; Kunz et al. 2019). Interestingly, we found that taxonomic and functional β-diversity (including β-richness) decreased but only taxonomic β-turnover increased with increasing tree-size dimension inequality and stand density. This overall result might support the selection effect or functional redundancy effect in shaping regional biotic processes whereas support the niche complementarity effect in shaping local biotic processes along climate and soil gradients.
In this study, we statistically found that local rather than regional taxonomic species turnover processes increased AGB through the niche complementarity effect, and that, the effect of species α-diversity was significantly positive when tree DBH inequality was included in the model (Ali et al. 2019; van der Plas 2019). However, tree DBH inequality did not influence species α-diversity as compared to tree height inequality and stand density, indicating that local species complementarity is greatly dependent on the measured index of stand structural heterogeneity (Clark 2010; Ali 2019). Interestingly, tree DBH inequality, tree height inequality, and stand density increased AGB, and their effect sizes were nearly equal but relatively stronger than species α-diversity. This result suggests that greater canopy packing increases AGB and is strongly dependent on big trees, i.e., plots having large trees with high DBH inequality (Lutz et al. 2018; Ali et al. 2020), through complementarity ways of light capture and use by co-occurring species and their interacting individuals in tropical forests (Williams et al. 2017; Chiang et al. 2016). However, in contrast to our expectations, we found that taxonomic and functional β-diversity (with exception of taxonomic β-turnover) declined AGB, indicating that forest functions might be also controlled by regional selection effects which are often negative with increasing species diversity or seldom positive with increasing dominant species only (Yachi and Loreau 2007; Mori et al. 2018). In addition, we found that AGB was directly and strongly (positively) controlled by climatic water availability rather than soil fertility. This observed mechanism might be related to the reason that regional environmental factors matter in shaping forest functions through direct influences on metabolic processes within and across communities (Chu et al. 2016; Wang and Ali 2021). However, in contrast to our results, a previous study has found that the relationships of landscape-scale forest multifunctionality with β-diversity were always positive but negative to positive with species α-diversity (van der Plas et al. 2016). This situation highlights that the influence of local and regional biotic processes on forest functions might be context-dependent or function-dependent or diversity-dependent (Mori et al. 2018; van der Plas 2019; Ali 2019).
It is important to consider that plot size as a random effect (in pSEMs) explained some portion of the variance in stand density, tree DBH inequality, and tree height inequality. However, boxplots show that only stand density, as well as climatic water availability, declined with increasing plot size probably due to the presence of big trees which are sensitive to drought conditions and subjected to anthropogenic disturbances around the world (Lutz et al. 2018; Bennett et al. 2015; Bordin et al. 2021). By considering all consequences through an integrative approach, our results suggest the strongest role of big trees in shaping AGB, and as such, we have previously reported that topmost trees rather than foremost species enhance AGB in studied forests (Ali et al. 2020). Nevertheless, the comparison of pSEMs, based on with and without plot size as a random effect, show that plot size explained some portion of the variance in stand structural heterogeneity attribute, but the effect size (e.g., on AGB) did not change dramatically. This result agrees with a global study where they found negligible influences of plot size on biodiversity and productivity in global forests (Liang et al. 2016). However, the variance explained by plot size as a random effect might be attributable to the presence of big trees, which are dependent on environmental conditions, and as such, we found some change in the effect sizes of CMI and soil fertility on AGB in pSEMs with and without plot size as a random effect. Through this understanding, it is important to consider the effects of big trees on forest diversity, structure, and functions for a better understanding of ecological mechanisms (Lutz et al. 2018; Bennett et al. 2015; Bordin et al. 2021).
Conclusion
In the present study, we found that local biotic processes increase AGB due to the local and regional niche complementarity effects, whereas the regional biotic processes declined AGB due to the regional selection effect or functional redundancy effect under favorable environmental conditions. These favorable environmental processes (particularly climatic water availability effects) shape AGB indirectly via two opposing mechanisms, i.e., promoting indirect effects via local biotic processes whereas suppressing indirect effects via regional biotic processes. We, therefore, argue that both local and regional biotic homogenization, as well as drought conditions, may have strong divergent impacts on forest functions and that the impacts of tree diversity loss may greatly reduce carbon sequestration.
Change history
16 January 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01575-1
References
Ali A (2019) Forest stand structure and functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Ecol Ind 98:665–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.017
Ali A, Lin SL, He JK, Kong FM, Yu JH, Jiang HS (2019) Climate and soils determine aboveground biomass indirectly via species diversity and stand structural complexity in tropical forests. For Ecol Manag 432:823–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.10.024
Ali A, Mattsson E, Nissanka SP, Wang LQ (2020) Topmost trees and foremost species underlie tropical forest structure, diversity and biomass through opposing mechanisms. For Ecol Manag 473:118299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118299
Bennett AC, McDowell NG, Allen CD, Anderson-Teixeira KJ (2015) Larger trees suffer most during drought in forests worldwide. Nature Plants 1:15139. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.139
Boisvenue C, Running SW (2006) Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivity—evidence since the middle of the 20th century. Glob Change Biol 12(5):862–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01134.x
Bordin KM, Esquivel-Muelbert A, Bergamin RS, Klipel J, Picolotto RC, Frangipani MA, Zanini KJ, Cianciaruso MV, Jarenkow JA, Jurinitz CF, Molz M, Higuchi P, da Silva AC, Müller SC (2021) Climate and large-sized trees, but not diversity, drive above-ground biomass in subtropical forests. For Ecol Manag 490:119126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119126
Cardoso P, Rigal F, Carvalho JC, Fortelius M, Borges PAV, Podani J, Schmera D (2014) Partitioning taxon, phylogenetic and functional beta diversity into replacement and richness difference components. J Biogeogr 41(4):749–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12239
Cardoso P, Rigal F, Carvalho JC (2015) BAT–biodiversity assessment tools, an R package for the measurement and estimation of alpha and beta taxon, phylogenetic and functional diversity. Methods Ecol Evol 6(2):232–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12310
Cavanaugh KC, Gosnell JS, Davis SL, Ahumada J, Boundja P, Clark DB, Mugerwa B, Jansen PA, O’Brien TG, Rovero F, Sheil D, Vasquez R, Andelman S (2014) Carbon storage in tropical forests correlates with taxonomic diversity and functional dominance on a global scale. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23(5):563–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12143
Chave J, Rejou-Mechain M, Burquez A, Chidumayo E, Colgan MS, Delitti WB, Duque A, Eid T, Fearnside PM, Goodman RC, Henry M, Martinez-Yrizar A, Mugasha WA, Muller-Landau HC, Mencuccini M, Nelson BW, Ngomanda A, Nogueira EM, Ortiz-Malavassi E, Pelisser R, Ploton P, Ryan CM, Saldarriaga JG, Vieilledent G (2014) Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob Change Biol 20(10):3177–3190. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629
Chiang JM, Spasojevic MJ, Muller-Landau HC, Sun IF, Lin Y, Su SH, Chen ZS, Chen CT, Swenson NG, McEwan RW (2016) Functional composition drives ecosystem function through multiple mechanisms in a broadleaved subtropical forest. Oecologia 182(3):829–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3717-z
Chu C, Bartlett M, Wang Y, He F, Weiner J, Chave J, Sack L (2016) Does climate directly influence NPP globally? Glob Change Biol 22(1):12–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13079
Chu C, Lutz JA, Král K, Vrška T, Yin X, Myers JA, Abiem I, Alonso A, Bourg N, Burslem DFRP, Cao M, Chapman H, Condit R, Fang S, Fischer GA, Gao L, Hao Z, Hau BCH, He Q, Hector A, Hubbell SP, Jiang M, Jin G, Kenfack D, Lai J, Li B, Li X, Li Y, Lian J, Lin L, Liu Y, Liu Y, Luo Y, Ma K, McShea W, Memiaghe H, Mi X, Ni M, O’Brien MJ, de Oliveira AA, Orwig DA, Parker GG, Qiao X, Ren H, Reynolds G, Sang W, Shen G, Su Z, Sui X, Sun IF, Tian S, Wang B, Wang X, Wang X, Wang Y, Weiblen GD, Wen S, Xi N, Xiang W, Xu H, Xu K, Ye W, Zhang B, Zhang J, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Zhu K, Zimmerman J, Storch D, Baltzer JL, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Mittelbach GG, He F (2019) Direct and indirect effects of climate on richness drive the latitudinal diversity gradient in forest trees. Ecol Lett 22(2):245–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13175
Clark JS (2010) Individuals and the variation needed for high species diversity in forest trees. Science 327(5969):1129–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183506
Corlett RT (2016) The impacts of droughts in tropical forests. Trends Plant Sci 21(7):584–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.02.003
Cornelissen JHC, Lavorel S, Garnier E, Díaz S, Buchmann N, Gurvich DE, Reich PB, ter Steege H, Morgan HD, van der Heijden MGA, Pausas JG, Poorter H (2003) A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot 51(4):335–380. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT02124
Currie DJ (1991) Energy and large-scale patterns of animal-and plant-species richness. Am Nat 137(1):27–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/285144
Ehbrecht M, Seidel D, Annighöfer P, Kreft H, Köhler M, Zemp DC, Puettmann K, Nilus R, Babweteera F, Willim K, Stiers M, Soto D, Boehmer HJ, Fisichelli N, Burnett M, Juday G, Stephens SL, Ammer C (2021) Global patterns and climatic controls of forest structural complexity. Nat Commun 12(1):e519. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20767-z
Engelbrecht BMJ, Comita LS, Condit R, Kursar TA, Tyree MT, Turner BL, Hubbell SP (2007) Drought sensitivity shapes species distribution patterns in tropical forests. Nature 447:80. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05747
Fick SE, Hijmans RJ (2017) WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 37(12):4302–4315. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086
Hautier Y, Isbell F, Borer ET, Seabloom EW, Harpole WS, Lind EM, MacDougall AS, Stevens CJ, Adler PB, Alberti J, Bakker JD, Brudvig LA, Buckley YM, Cadotte M, Caldeira MC, Chaneton EJ, Chu C, Daleo P, Dickman CR, Dwyer JM, Eskelinen A, Fay PA, Firn J, Hagenah N, Hillebrand H, Iribarne O, Kirkman KP, Knops JMH, La Pierre KJ, McCulley RL, Morgan JW, Pärtel M, Pascual J, Price JN, Prober SM, Risch AC, Sankaran M, Schuetz M, Standish RJ, Virtanen R, Wardle GM, Yahdjian L, Hector A (2018) Local loss and spatial homogenization of plant diversity reduce ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat Ecol Evol 2(1):50–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0395-0
Hector A, Bagchi R (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448(7150):188–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05947
Hogg EH (1997) Temporal scaling of moisture and the forest-grassland boundary in western Canada. Agric for Meteorol 84(1–2):115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1923(96)02380-5
Husson F, Josse J, Le S, Mazet J, Husson MF (2016) Package ‘FactoMineR’ An R package. pp. 698 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01
Jucker T, Sanchez AC, Lindsell JA, Allen HD, Amable GS, Coomes DA (2016) Drivers of aboveground wood production in a lowland tropical forest of West Africa: teasing apart the roles of tree density, tree diversity, soil phosphorus, and historical logging. Ecol Evol 6(12):4004–4017. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2175
Kraft NJB, Valencia R, Ackerly DD (2008) Functional traits and niche-based tree community assembly in an Amazonian forest. Science 322(5901):580–582. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160662
Kunz M, Fichtner A, Hardtle W, Raumonen P, Bruelheide H, von Oheimb G (2019) Neighbour species richness and local structural variability modulate aboveground allocation patterns and crown morphology of individual trees. Ecol Lett 22(12):2130–2140. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13400
Lasky JR, Uriarte M, Boukili VK, Chazdon RL (2014) Trait-mediated assembly processes predict successional changes in community diversity of tropical forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(15):5616–5621. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319342111
Lefcheck JS (2016) PiecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol Evol 7(5):573–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12512
Legendre P (2014) Interpreting the replacement and richness difference components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23(11):1324–1334. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12207
Liang J, Crowther TW, Picard N, Wiser S, Zhou M, Alberti G, Schulze E-D, McGuire AD, Bozzato F, Pretzsch H, deMiguel S, Paquette A, Hérault B, SchererLorenzen M, Barrett CB, Glick HB, Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs GJ, Pfautsch S, Viana H, Vibrans AC, Ammer C, Schall P, Verbyla D, Tchebakova N, Fischer M, Watson JV, Chen HYH, Lei X, Schelhaas M-J, Lu H, Gianelle D, Parfenova EI, Salas C, Lee E, Lee B, Kim HS, Bruelheide H, Coomes DA, Piotto D, Sunderland T, Schmid B, GourletFleury S, Sonké B, Tavani R, Zhu J, Brandl S, Vayreda J, Kitahara F, Searle EB, Neldner VJ, Ngugi MR, Baraloto C, Frizzera L, Bałazy R, Oleksyn J, ZawiłaNiedźwiecki T, Bouriaud O, Bussotti F, Finér L, Jaroszewicz B, Jucker T, Valladares F, Jagodzinski AM, Peri PL, Gonmadje C, Marthy W, OBrien T, Martin EH, Marshall AR, Rovero F, Bitariho R, Niklaus PA, AlvarezLoayza P, Chamuya N, Valencia R, Mortier F, Wortel V, EngoneObiang NL, Ferreira LV, Odeke DE, Vasquez RM, Lewis SL, Reich PB (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957
Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime J, Hector A, Hooper D, Huston M, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Tilman D, Wardle D (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294(5543):804–808. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064088
Lutz JA, Furniss TJ, Johnson DJ, Davies SJ, Allen D, Alonso A, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, Andrade A, Baltzer J, Becker KML, Blomdahl EM, Bourg NA, Bunyavejchewin S, Burslem DFRP, Cansler CA, Cao K, Cao M, Cárdenas D, Chang L-W, Chao K-J, Chao W-C, Chiang J-M, Chu C, Chuyong GB, Clay K, Condit R, Cordell S, Dattaraja HS, Duque A, Ewango CEN, Fischer GA, Fletcher C, Freund JA, Giardina C, Germain SJ, Gilbert GS, Hao Z, Hart T, Hau BCH, He F, Hector A, Howe RW, Hsieh C-F, Hu Y-H, Hubbell SP, Inman-Narahari FM, Itoh A, Janík D, Kassim AR, Kenfack D, Korte L, Král K, Larson AJ, Li Y, Lin Y, Liu S, Lum S, Ma K, Makana J-R, Malhi Y, McMahon SM, McShea WJ, Memiaghe HR, Mi X, Morecroft M, Musili PM, Myers JA, Novotny V, de Oliveira A, Ong P, Orwig DA, Ostertag R, Parker GG, Patankar R, Phillips RP, Reynolds G, Sack L, Song G-ZM, Su S-H, Sukumar R, Sun I-F, Suresh HS, Swanson ME, Tan S, Thomas DW, Thompson J, Uriarte M, Valencia R, Vicentini A, Vrška T, Wang X, Weiblen GD, Wolf A, Wu S-H, Xu H, Yamakura T, Yap S, Zimmerman JK (2018) Global importance of large-diameter trees. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 27(7):849–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12747
MacArthur R, Levins R (1964) Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 51(6):1207–1210. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319342111
Mattsson E, Ostwald M, Wallin G, Nissanka SP (2016) Heterogeneity and assessment uncertainties in forest characteristics and biomass carbon stocks: important considerations for climate mitigation policies. Land Use Policy 59:84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.026
Morin X, Fahse L, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bugmann H (2011) Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecol Lett 14(12):1211–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01691.x
Mori AS, Forest I, Rupert S (2018) β-Diversity, Community Assembly, and Ecosystem Functioning. Trends in Ecol Evol 33(7):549–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.04.012
Naeem S (2002) Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigm. Ecology 83(6):1537–1552. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1537:ECOBLT]2.0.CO;2
O’Brien EM, Field R, Whittaker RJ (2000) Climatic gradients in woody plant (tree and shrub) diversity: water-energy dynamics, residual variation, and topography. Oikos 89(3):588–600. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890319.x
Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, Kurz WA, Phillips OL, Shvidenko A, Lewis SL, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Jackson RB, Pacala SW, McGuire AD, Piao S, Rautiainen A, Sitch S, Hayes D (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333(6045):988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609
Phillips OL, van der Heijden G, L. LS, Gabriela L-G, C. ALEO, Jon L, Yadvinder M, Abel M, Samuel A, Alvarez DE, Iêda A, Sandy A, Ana A, Luzmila A, Gerardo A, R. BT, Lilian B, Damien B, Alves dOÁC, Kuo-Jung C, Dávila CN, Lola dC, R. FT, B. FJ, M. FN, Aparecida FM, David G, Emanuel G, Niro H, Eurídice H, Eliana J, Helen K, J. KT, C. LJ, Patrick M, Casimiro M, Alexandra M, Núñez VP, Sandra P, S-H. PK, Peña CA, Adriana P, A. QC, Fredy R, Hirma R, Agustín R, Rafael S, Michael S, Javier S, Marcos S, W. FSJ, Bonaventure S, Sota TA, Juliana S, D. TJR, Rodolfo V, Emilio V (2010) Drought–mortality relationships for tropical forests. New Phytologist 187(3):631-646 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03359.x
Podani J, Schmera D (2011) A new conceptual and methodological framework for exploring and explaining pattern in presence—absence data. Oikos 120(11):1625–1638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19451.x
Poorter L, van der Sande MT, Arets EJMM, Ascarrunz N, Enquist B, Finegan B, Licona JC, Martínez-Ramos M, Mazzei L, Meave JA, Muñoz R, Nytch CJ, de Oliveira AA, Pérez-García EA, Prado-Junior J, Rodríguez-Velázques J, Ruschel AR, Salgado-Negret B, Schiavini I, Swenson NG, Tenorio EA, Thompson J, Toledo M, Uriarte M, Pvd H, Zimmerman JK, Peña-Claros M (2017) Biodiversity and climate determine the functioning of Neotropical forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 26(12):1423–1434. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12668
Prado-Junior JA, Schiavini I, Vale VS, Arantes CS, Sande MT, Lohbeck M, Poorter L (2016) Conservative species drive biomass productivity in tropical dry forests. J Ecol 104(3):817–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12543
Quesada CA, Phillips OL, Schwarz M, Czimczik CI, Baker TR, Patiño S, Fyllas NM, Hodnett MG, Herrera R, Almeida S, Alvarez Davila E, Arneth A, Arroyo L, Chao KJ, Dezzeo N, Erwin T, di Fiore A, Higuchi N, Honorio Coronado E, Jimenez EM, Killeen T, Lezama AT, Lloyd G, López-González G, Luizão FJ, Malhi Y, Monteagudo A, Neill DA, Núñez Vargas P, Paiva R, Peacock J, Peñuela MC, Peña Cruz A, Pitman N, Priante Filho N, Prieto A, Ramírez H, Rudas A, Salomão R, Santos AJB, Schmerler J, Silva N, Silveira M, Vásquez R, Vieira I, Terborgh J, Lloyd J (2012) Basin-wide variations in Amazon forest structure and function are mediated by both soils and climate. Biogeosciences 9:2203–2246. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-2203-2012
R Development Core Team (2019) R version 3.6.0. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ratcliffe S, Wirth C, Jucker T, der Plas F, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Verheyen K, Allan E, Benavides R, Bruelheide H, Ohse B, Paquette A, Ampoorter E, Bastias CC, Bauhus J, Bonal D, Bouriaud O, Bussotti F, Carnol M, Castagneyrol B, Chećko E, Dawud SM, Wandeler HD, Domisch T, Finér L, Fischer M, Fotelli M, Gessler A, Granier A, Grossiord C, Guyot V, Haase J, Hättenschwiler S, Jactel H, Jaroszewicz B, Joly F-X, Kambach S, Kolb S, Koricheva J, Liebersgesell M, Milligan H, Müller S, Muys B, Nguyen D, Nock C, Pollastrini M, Purschke O, Radoglou K, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Roger F, Ruiz-Benito P, Seidl R, Selvi F, Seiferling I, Stenlid J, Valladares F, Vesterdal L, Baeten L (2017) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relations in European forests depend on environmental context. Ecol Lett 20(11):1414–1426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12849
Reyes G, Brown S, Chapman J, Lugo AE (1992) Wood densities of tropical tree species, Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-88. New Orleans, LA: US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 15 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/SO-GTR-88
Silva Pedro M, Rammer W, Seidl R (2016) A disturbance-induced increase in tree species diversity facilitates forest productivity. Landscape Ecol 31(5):989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0317-y
ter Steege H, Pitman NCA, Sabatier D, Baraloto C, Salomão RP, Guevara JE, Phillips OL, Castilho CV, Magnusson WE, Molino J-F, Monteagudo A, Núñez Vargas P, Montero JC, Feldpausch TR, Coronado ENH, Killeen TJ, Mostacedo B, Vasquez R, Assis RL, Terborgh J, Wittmann F, Andrade A, Laurance WF, Laurance SGW, Marimon BS, Marimon B-H, Guimarães Vieira IC, Amaral IL, Brienen R, Castellanos H, Cárdenas López D, Duivenvoorden JF, Mogollón HF, Matos FDdA, Dávila N, García-Villacorta R, Stevenson Diaz PR, Costa F, Emilio T, Levis C, Schietti J, Souza P, Alonso A, Dallmeier F, Montoya AJD, Fernandez Piedade MT, Araujo-Murakami A, Arroyo L, Gribel R, Fine PVA, Peres CA, Toledo M, Aymard CGA, Baker TR, Cerón C, Engel J, Henkel TW, Maas P, Petronelli P, Stropp J, Zartman CE, Daly D, Neill D, Silveira M, Paredes MR, Chave J, Lima Filho DdA, Jørgensen PM, Fuentes A, Schöngart J, Cornejo Valverde F, Di Fiore A, Jimenez EM, Peñuela Mora MC, Phillips JF, Rivas G, van Andel TR, von Hildebrand P, Hoffman B, Zent EL, Malhi Y, Prieto A, Rudas A, Ruschell AR, Silva N, Vos V, Zent S, Oliveira AA, Schutz AC, Gonzales T, Trindade Nascimento M, Ramirez-Angulo H, Sierra R, Tirado M, Umaña Medina MN, van der Heijden G, Vela CIA, Vilanova Torre E, Vriesendorp C, Wang O, Young KR, Baider C, Balslev H, Ferreira C, Mesones I, Torres-Lezama A, Urrego Giraldo LE, Zagt R, Alexiades MN, Hernandez L, Huamantupa-Chuquimaco I, Milliken W, Palacios Cuenca W, Pauletto D, Valderrama Sandoval E, Valenzuela Gamarra L, Dexter KG, Feeley K, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Silman MR (2013) Hyperdominance in the Amazonian Tree Flora. Science 342(6156):1243092. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243092
Tilman D (2004) Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(30):10854–10861. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403458101
Toledo M, Peña-Claros M, Bongers F, Alarcón A, Balcázar J, Chuviña J, Leaño C, Licona JC, Poorter L (2012) Distribution patterns of tropical woody species in response to climatic and edaphic gradients. J Ecol 100(1):253–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01890.x
Trabucco A, Zomer R (2019) Global aridity index and potential evapotranspiration (ET0) Climate Database v2. figshare. Fileset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7504448.v3
van der Plas F (2019) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in naturally assembled communities. Biol Rev 94(4):1220–1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12499
van der Plas F, Manning P, Soliveres S, Allan E, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Verheyen K, Wirth C, Zavala MA, Ampoorter E, Baeten L, Barbaro L, Bauhus J, Benavides R, Benneter A, Bonal D, Bouriaud O, Bruelheide H, Bussotti F, Carnol M, Castagneyrol B, Charbonnier Y, Coomes DA, Coppi A, Bastias CC, Dawud SM, De Wandeler H, Domisch T, Finér L, Gessler A, Granier A, Grossiord C, Guyot V, Hättenschwiler S, Jactel H, Jaroszewicz B, Joly FX, Jucker T, Koricheva J, Milligan H, Mueller S, Muys B, Nguyen D, Pollastrini M, Ratcliffe S, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Selvi F, Stenlid J, Valladares F, Vesterdal L, Zielínski D, Fischer M (2016) Biotic homogenization can decrease landscape-scale forest multifunctionality. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(13):3557–3562. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517903113
Villa PM, Martins SV, Diniz ÉS, de Oliveira N, Neto S, Neri AV, Pinto-Junior H, Nunes JA, Bueno ML, Ali A (2021) Taxonomic and functional beta diversity of woody communities along Amazon forest succession: the relative importance of stand age, soil properties and spatial factor. For Ecol Manag 482:118885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118885
Wang LQ, Ali A (2021) Climate regulates the functional traits—aboveground biomass relationships at a community-level in forests: a global meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 761:143238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143238
Wieder W (2014) Regridded Harmonized World Soil Database v1.2: ORNL Distributed Active Archive Center.
Williams LJ, Paquette A, Cavender-Bares J, Messier C, Reich PB (2017) Spatial complementarity in tree crowns explains overyielding in species mixtures. Nat Ecol Evol 1:0063. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0063
Yachi S, Loreau M (2007) Does complementary resource use enhance ecosystem functioning? A model of light competition in plant communities. Ecol Lett 10(1):54–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00994.x
Yuan Z, Ali A, Jucker T, Ruiz-Benito P, Wang S, Jiang L, Wang X, Lin F, Ye J, Hao Z, Loreau M (2019) Multiple abiotic and biotic pathways shape biomass demographic processes in temperate forests. Ecology 100(5):e02650. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2650
Zanne AE, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Coomes DA, Ilic J, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Miller RB, Swenson NG, Wiemann MC, Chave J (2009) Data from: towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Dryad Data Repos. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.234
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6
Acknowledgements
We thank Mr. Zaheer Abbas (South China Normal University) for his technical help in producing study maps.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
UAA and AA conceived the study; EM and SPN collected and provided forest inventory data; AA extracted environmental factors datasets from global databases; UAA and AA conducted statistical analyses; UAA and AA wrote the first draft of the manuscript whereas EM and SPN contributed substantially to the draft.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Project funding: This work is funded by the Swedish Energy Agency (Project No 35586-1) for supporting the fieldwork, and Special Project (No. 521100221033) of Hebei University for the interpretation of results.
The online version is available at http://www.springerlink.com.
Corresponding editor: Yu Lei.
During production process, the below mentioned errors appeared in the original article and inadvertently published with error. The corrected version is given below:
1. During proofreading, the author's found some visualization mistakes in Fig. 5 due to the artwork in the arrow and legend. This mistake has been updated in the original article. The corrected Fig 5 is given below:
2. Trabucco and Zomer (2019) appears at the top of the references list due to misplacement. This has been corrected in the original article.
3. The authors names in Mori et al. 2018 has wrongly been written due to manual references setting in proofreading. This error has been updated. Please read corrected reference as below:
4. Cardoso et al. 2014 and Cardoso et al. 2015 were wrongly attributed with each other in the references list of HTML version. This error has been updated.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Abbasi, U.A., Mattsson, E., Nissanka, S.P. et al. Species α-diversity promotes but β-diversity restricts aboveground biomass in tropical forests, depending on stand structure and environmental factors. J. For. Res. 34, 889–901 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01560-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01560-8