Cargando…

Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology

A growing body of evidence shows that aboveground and belowground communities and processes are intrinsically linked, and that feedbacks between these subsystems have important implications for community structure and ecosystem functioning. Almost all studies on this topic have been carried out from...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Putten, Wim H., Bardgett, R. D., de Ruiter, P. C., Hol, W. H. G., Meyer, K. M., Bezemer, T. M., Bradford, M. A., Christensen, S., Eppinga, M. B., Fukami, T., Hemerik, L., Molofsky, J., Schädler, M., Scherber, C., Strauss, S. Y., Vos, M., Wardle, D. A.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19412705
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1351-8
_version_ 1782168662114828288
author van der Putten, Wim H.
Bardgett, R. D.
de Ruiter, P. C.
Hol, W. H. G.
Meyer, K. M.
Bezemer, T. M.
Bradford, M. A.
Christensen, S.
Eppinga, M. B.
Fukami, T.
Hemerik, L.
Molofsky, J.
Schädler, M.
Scherber, C.
Strauss, S. Y.
Vos, M.
Wardle, D. A.
author_facet van der Putten, Wim H.
Bardgett, R. D.
de Ruiter, P. C.
Hol, W. H. G.
Meyer, K. M.
Bezemer, T. M.
Bradford, M. A.
Christensen, S.
Eppinga, M. B.
Fukami, T.
Hemerik, L.
Molofsky, J.
Schädler, M.
Scherber, C.
Strauss, S. Y.
Vos, M.
Wardle, D. A.
author_sort van der Putten, Wim H.
collection PubMed
description A growing body of evidence shows that aboveground and belowground communities and processes are intrinsically linked, and that feedbacks between these subsystems have important implications for community structure and ecosystem functioning. Almost all studies on this topic have been carried out from an empirical perspective and in specific ecological settings or contexts. Belowground interactions operate at different spatial and temporal scales. Due to the relatively low mobility and high survival of organisms in the soil, plants have longer lasting legacy effects belowground than aboveground. Our current challenge is to understand how aboveground–belowground biotic interactions operate across spatial and temporal scales, and how they depend on, as well as influence, the abiotic environment. Because empirical capacities are too limited to explore all possible combinations of interactions and environmental settings, we explore where and how they can be supported by theoretical approaches to develop testable predictions and to generalise empirical results. We review four key areas where a combined aboveground–belowground approach offers perspectives for enhancing ecological understanding, namely succession, agro-ecosystems, biological invasions and global change impacts on ecosystems. In plant succession, differences in scales between aboveground and belowground biota, as well as between species interactions and ecosystem processes, have important implications for the rate and direction of community change. Aboveground as well as belowground interactions either enhance or reduce rates of plant species replacement. Moreover, the outcomes of the interactions depend on abiotic conditions and plant life history characteristics, which may vary with successional position. We exemplify where translation of the current conceptual succession models into more predictive models can help targeting empirical studies and generalising their results. Then, we discuss how understanding succession may help to enhance managing arable crops, grasslands and invasive plants, as well as provide insights into the effects of global change on community re-organisation and ecosystem processes.
format Text
id pubmed-2700873
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27008732009-06-23 Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology van der Putten, Wim H. Bardgett, R. D. de Ruiter, P. C. Hol, W. H. G. Meyer, K. M. Bezemer, T. M. Bradford, M. A. Christensen, S. Eppinga, M. B. Fukami, T. Hemerik, L. Molofsky, J. Schädler, M. Scherber, C. Strauss, S. Y. Vos, M. Wardle, D. A. Oecologia Concepts, Reviews and Syntheses A growing body of evidence shows that aboveground and belowground communities and processes are intrinsically linked, and that feedbacks between these subsystems have important implications for community structure and ecosystem functioning. Almost all studies on this topic have been carried out from an empirical perspective and in specific ecological settings or contexts. Belowground interactions operate at different spatial and temporal scales. Due to the relatively low mobility and high survival of organisms in the soil, plants have longer lasting legacy effects belowground than aboveground. Our current challenge is to understand how aboveground–belowground biotic interactions operate across spatial and temporal scales, and how they depend on, as well as influence, the abiotic environment. Because empirical capacities are too limited to explore all possible combinations of interactions and environmental settings, we explore where and how they can be supported by theoretical approaches to develop testable predictions and to generalise empirical results. We review four key areas where a combined aboveground–belowground approach offers perspectives for enhancing ecological understanding, namely succession, agro-ecosystems, biological invasions and global change impacts on ecosystems. In plant succession, differences in scales between aboveground and belowground biota, as well as between species interactions and ecosystem processes, have important implications for the rate and direction of community change. Aboveground as well as belowground interactions either enhance or reduce rates of plant species replacement. Moreover, the outcomes of the interactions depend on abiotic conditions and plant life history characteristics, which may vary with successional position. We exemplify where translation of the current conceptual succession models into more predictive models can help targeting empirical studies and generalising their results. Then, we discuss how understanding succession may help to enhance managing arable crops, grasslands and invasive plants, as well as provide insights into the effects of global change on community re-organisation and ecosystem processes. Springer-Verlag 2009-05-03 2009-08 /pmc/articles/PMC2700873/ /pubmed/19412705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1351-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2009
spellingShingle Concepts, Reviews and Syntheses
van der Putten, Wim H.
Bardgett, R. D.
de Ruiter, P. C.
Hol, W. H. G.
Meyer, K. M.
Bezemer, T. M.
Bradford, M. A.
Christensen, S.
Eppinga, M. B.
Fukami, T.
Hemerik, L.
Molofsky, J.
Schädler, M.
Scherber, C.
Strauss, S. Y.
Vos, M.
Wardle, D. A.
Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology
title Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology
title_full Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology
title_fullStr Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology
title_full_unstemmed Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology
title_short Empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology
title_sort empirical and theoretical challenges in aboveground–belowground ecology
topic Concepts, Reviews and Syntheses
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700873/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19412705
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1351-8
work_keys_str_mv AT vanderputtenwimh empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT bardgettrd empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT deruiterpc empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT holwhg empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT meyerkm empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT bezemertm empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT bradfordma empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT christensens empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT eppingamb empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT fukamit empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT hemerikl empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT molofskyj empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT schadlerm empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT scherberc empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT strausssy empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT vosm empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology
AT wardleda empiricalandtheoreticalchallengesinabovegroundbelowgroundecology