Disturbances, biodiversity changes and ecosystem stability

From Coastal Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This article reports results of the MarBEF BIOFUSE project which focused primarily on rocky shore ecosystems. It also integrates insights from broader marine research on biodiversity–ecosystem stability. The term 'stability' is used here to mean 'low temporal variability'. The article should be read in conjunction with the article Resilience and resistance.

The diversity indices mentioned in the text are broadly defined as: 'richness'=number of different species, 'abundance'=number of individuals per species, 'evenness'=abundance of all major species, see the article Measurements of biodiversity.




Impacts of biodiversity change on ecosystem stability

There is concern about the potential effect of biodiversity loss on the functioning of ecosystems and their services to society. A key consideration is to what extent biodiversity can improve the stability of ecosystems. More stable ecosystems are more reliable providers of ecosystem services such as fish catches and stabilisation of coastal habitats.


Seagrass meadows provide multiple ecosystem services and contribute to coastal stability.


Marine field studies further show that ecosystem functioning, such as biomass production, often increases with species richness across a wide range of taxa and environments[1]. These effects are commonly explained by mechanisms such as complementarity (more efficient resource use among species) and selection effects (dominance of particularly productive species). However, evidence for consistent effects of biodiversity on the stability of ecosystem functioning in marine systems remains limited, and observed relationships vary among studies and ecosystems[2].

Human disturbance and the stability of rocky shore assemblages

Marine ecosystems, including rocky shore habitats, are affected by a wide range of human disturbances such as harvesting, nutrient enrichment, pollution and habitat modification. The multiple pressures to which they are exposed also include climate change, acidification and species invasions. These stressors may lead to biodiversity loss, altering biodiversity–function relationships and ecosystem stability[3][4].


Rocky shore habitats host dynamic ecosystems influenced by tides and environmental variability.


Marine research indicates that the combined effects of biodiversity loss and multiple stressors can be additive, synergistic, or antagonistic, making ecosystem responses difficult to predict[3]. Ecosystems can be viewed as complex adaptive systems, in which diverse local interactions contribute to ecosystem functioning and multifunctionality. These interactions can enhance the capacity of ecosystems to adjust to environmental change and continue to provide essential services[5]. While ecosystems may compensate for the loss of individual species through mechanisms such as functional redundancy, this capacity is limited. The loss of multiple species or entire functional groups can reduce ecosystem functioning and may lead to abrupt changes or regime shifts[6].

In the BIOFUSE project simple experiments were used to compare the effect of loss of a key species, combined with some other experimental disturbance, on a number of marine ecosystems. These experiments showed that the loss of key species affected many, but not all, ecosystems, and that responses varied across habitats and locations. Complex combined effects occurred in a few cases, but large impacts on ecosystem functioning were relatively infrequent. This suggests that, in the studied habitats, some compensation for the loss of a single species - even a key species - can occur, although this is clearly context dependent[2][7]. The observed variation among locations is consistent with the regional focus of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Species abundance and ecosystem functioning

Many species are being reduced in abundance or driven to local extinction by human activities. Although changing biodiversity clearly affect the functioning of ecosystems, better understanding is needed of the relative importance of different kinds of changes (e.g. species loss versus shifts in abundance).

Sampling sites of the BIOFUSE project.

Scientists working on the MarBEF BIOFUSE project conducted experiments with intertidal communities of algae and invertebrates to assess the effects of changes in key species on the functioning of the selected ecosystems. The relationship between biodiversity and stability of marine benthic assemblages was investigated through meta-analyses using existing data sets (n = 28) covering various spatial (m–km) and temporal (1973–2006; ranging from 5 to >250 months) scales in different benthic habitats (emergent rock, rock pools and sedimentary habitats) over different European marine systems (North Atlantic and western Mediterranean).

In these analyses, stability was measured as low temporal variability in species richness, total abundance and community structure. The results showed that relationships between biodiversity and stability were generally weak or not statistically significant, and varied depending on habitat type, spatial scale and region[2]. The study provided a comprehensive assessment of large spatial scale variation in the relationship between diversity and temporal stability across different marine systems.

Multivariate analyses further indicated that stability of species abundance and composition was not strongly correlated with commonly used diversity indices. Instead, aspects of community structure such as evenness and species turnover appeared to play an important role in some systems. In certain habitats, species-rich assemblages exhibited relatively high temporal variability in species composition, highlighting that species richness alone does not necessarily confer stability.

Overall, the BIOFUSE results suggest that relationships between species richness and temporal variability are often weak and highly context-dependent. They depend on spatial and temporal scale, habitat characteristics and the broader marine system considered[2].

The experiments further indicated that, within the BIOFUSE systems, changes in the abundance of particular species—especially dominant or functionally important ones—often had more consistent effects on ecosystem functioning than changes in species richness per se. This finding is consistent with the importance of species identity and keystone or dominant species in driving ecosystem processes. It emphasises the need to conserve not only species diversity but also the relative abundances that structure marine coastal environments[7].

BIOFUSE results also suggest that only some types of human disturbance have strong and consistent effects on stability. Certain disturbances, such as nutrient enrichment or loss of large seaweeds, did not systematically affect temporal variability across all studied systems, whereas other disturbances, including the removal of key organisms, reduced stability in some cases.

More recent marine studies show that the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem stability depends strongly on how biodiversity is measured. Changes in species richness alone often fail to capture important shifts in community structure, as variation in species composition, evenness and turnover can occur without clear changes in richness[8][9]. This implies that assessments of ecosystem stability based solely on species richness may be misleading. Changes in community composition and species interactions can influence ecosystem functioning even when species numbers remain relatively constant.

Role of functional diversity

Functional diversity—the diversity of species traits and ecological roles—is a key determinant of ecosystem functioning and stability and can often be a strong predictor of ecosystem responses to environmental change[10]. Functional complementarity enhances resource use efficiency and ecosystem functioning. It also buffers ecosystems against species loss. Experimental work demonstrates that higher functional diversity increases resistance to invasion and enhances ecosystem functioning in marine systems[11].

Fargione and Tilman (2005[12]) found evidence that resistance to disturbance by invading species depends more on the functional diversity than on the number of taxa per functional group. This may explain why at elevated functional richness (high complementarity) the resistance to change is not strongly related to species richness. When functional richness is already high, additional species may contribute less to stability.

There is also strong evidence that ecosystems better resist to disturbance when multiple species carry out similar functional roles[13]. The relative importance of species richness therefore depends on the level of functional diversity. When functional richness is low, increasing species richness (and thus redundancy) can enhance ecosystem persistence. In summary, the persistence of communities is strongly related to species richness at low functional richness and little related to species richness at high functional richness[14]. The interplay between functional redundancy (reducing the consequences of species loss) and functional complementarity (reducing the risk of invasion) seem to explain the observed interactive effects of species and functional richness with regard to community level impacts of environmental change [10].


Related articles

Measurements of biodiversity
Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem function
Resilience and resistance
Rocky shore habitat
Functional diversity in marine ecosystems
Functional groups
Marine Biodiversity


References

  1. ↑ Duffy, J.E., Godwin, C.M. and Cardinale, B.J. 2017. Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature 549: 261-264
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Cusson, M., Crowe, T.P., Araujo, R., Arenas, F., Aspden, R., Bulleri, F., Davoult, D., Dyson, K., Fraschetti, S., Herkuel, K., Hubas, C., Jenkins, S., Kotta, J., Kraufvelin , P., Migné, A., Molis, M., Mulholland, O., Noël. L., Paterson, D.M., Saunders, J., Somerfield, P.J., Sousa-Pinto, I., Spilmont, H., Terlizzi, A. and Benedetti-Cecchi, L. 2015. Relationships between biodiversity and the stability of marine ecosystems: Comparisons at a European scale using meta-analysis. Journal of Sea Research 98: 5–14
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Crain, C.M., Kroeker, K. and Halpern, B.S. 2008. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11: 1304-15
  4. ↑ Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., Casey, K.S., Koenig, K., Longo, C., Stewart Lowndes, J., Cotton Rockwood, R., Selig, E.R., Selkoe, K.A., Walbridge, S. 2015. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world's oceans. Nature Communications 6, 7615
  5. ↑ Correia, A.M.; Lopes, L.F. 2023. Revisiting Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning through the Lens of Complex Adaptive Systems. Diversity 15, 895
  6. ↑ Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314: 787-790
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Heip, C., Hummel, H., van Avesaath, P., Appeltans, W., Arvanitidis, C., Aspden, R., Austen, M., Boero, F., Bouma, TJ., Boxshall, G., Buchholz, F., Crowe, T., Delaney, A., Deprez, T., Emblow, C., Feral, J.P., Gasol, J.M., Gooday, A., Harder, J., Ianora, A., Kraberg, A., Mackenzie, B., Ojaveer, H., Paterson, D., Rumohr, H., Schiedek, D., Sokolowski, A., Somerfield, P., Sousa Pinto, I., Vincx, M., Węsławski, J.M. and Nash, R. 2009. Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. Printbase, Dublin, Ireland ISSN 2009-2539
  8. ↑ Valdivia, N. and Molis, M. 2009. Observational evidence of a negative biodiversity–stability relationship in intertidal epibenthic communities. Aquatic Biology 4: 263–271
  9. ↑ Hillebrand, H., Blasius, B., Borer, E. T., Chase, J. M., Downing, J. A., Eriksson, B. K., Filstrup, C. T., Harpole, W. S., Hodapp, D., Larsen, S., Lewandowska, A. M., Seabloom, E. W., Van de Waal, D. B. and Ryabov, A. B. 2018. Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: Consequences for conservation and monitoring. Journal of Applied Ecology 55: 169-184
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Wahl, M., Link, H., Alexandridis, N., Thomason, J.C., Cifuentes, M., et al. 2011. Re-Structuring of Marine Communities Exposed to Environmental Change: A Global Study on the Interactive Effects of Species and Functional Richness. PLoS ONE 6: e19514
  11. ↑ Stachowicz, J.J., Bruno, J.F. and Duffy, J.E. 2007. Understanding the Effects of Marine Biodiversity on Communities and Ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38: 739–66
  12. ↑ Fargione, J.E. and Tilman, D. 2005. Diversity decreases invasion via both sampling and complementarity effects. Ecol. Lett 8: 604–611
  13. ↑ Hooper, D.U., Chapin III, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75: 3–35
  14. ↑ Naeem, S., Chapin III, F.S., Costanza, R., Ehrlich, P.R., Golley, F.B., Hooper, D.U., Lawton, J.H., O'Neill, R.V., Mooney, H.A., Sala, O.E., Symstad, A.J. and Tilman, D. 1999. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Maintaining Natural Life Support Processes. Issues in Ecology 4: 1-11


The main author of this article is Job Dronkers
Please note that others may also have edited the contents of this article.
Citation: Job Dronkers (2026): Disturbances, biodiversity changes and ecosystem stability. Available from http://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Disturbances,_biodiversity_changes_and_ecosystem_stability [accessed on 17-04-2026]
Retrieved from "https://www.coastalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Disturbances,_biodiversity_changes_and_ecosystem_stability&oldid=81910"