Trade‐offs and synergies between ecosystem productivity and stability in temperate grasslands

• Published in: Global ecology and biogeography 2023-04, Vol.32 (4), p.561-572
• Main Authors: Mahaut, Lucie, Choler, Philippe, Denelle, Pierre, Garnier, Eric, Thuiller, Wilfried, Kattge, Jens, Lemauviel‐Lavenant, Servane, Lavorel, Sandra, Munoz, François, Renard, Delphine, Serra‐Diaz, Josep M., Viovy, Nicolas, Violle, Cyrille
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abiotic factors; Biodiversity; Biotic factors; constancy; ecosystem functioning; Ecosystems; eutrophication; Flora; functional traits; Grassland management; Grasslands; Growing season; Habitats; Multivariate statistical analysis; Nitrogen; Ocean, Atmosphere; Plant species; Plants (botany); Productivity; Remote sensing; resistance; Sciences of the Universe; Strategic management; Structural stability; Taxonomy; Vegetation; Vegetation index
• ISSN: 1466-822X; 1466-8238; 1466-822X
• DOI: 10.1111/geb.13645

Aim It is crucial to monitor how the productivity of grasslands varies with its temporal stability for management of these ecosystems. However, identifying the direction of the productivity–stability relationship remains challenging because ecological stability has multiple components that can display neutral, positive or negative covariations. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the direction of the productivity–stability relationship depends on the biotic interactions and abiotic conditions that underlie ecosystem productivity and stability. We decipher the relationships between grassland productivity and two components of its stability in four habitat types with contrasting environments and flora. Location France. Time period 2000–2020. Major taxa Grassland plant species. Methods We used c. 20,000 vegetation plots spread across French permanent grasslands and remotely sensed vegetation indices to quantify grassland productivity and temporal stability. We decomposed stability into constancy (i.e., temporal invariability) and resistance (i.e., maximum deviation from average) and deciphered the direct and indirect effects of abiotic (namely growing season length and nitrogen input) and biotic (namely plant taxonomic diversity, trait diversity and community‐weighted mean traits) factors on productivity–stability relationships using structural equation models. Results We found a positive relationship between productivity and constancy and a negative relationship between productivity and resistance in all habitats. Abiotic factors had stronger effects on productivity and stability compared with biotic factors. A longer growing season enhanced grassland productivity and constancy. Nitrogen input had positive and negative effects on grassland productivity and resistance, respectively. Trait values affected the constancy and resistance of grassland more than taxonomic and trait diversity, with effects varying from one habitat to another. Productivity was not related to any biotic factor. Main conclusions Our findings reveal how vital it is to consider both the multiple components of stability and the interaction between environment and biodiversity to gain an understanding of the relationships between productivity and stability in real‐world ecosystems, which is a crucial step for sustainable grassland management.