Transcript Peter Adler - Louisiana State University

Katherine Hovanes
Community Ecology 2013

1994
A.B. Harvard
 Environmental Studies

1996
Fulbright Fellowship (Argentina)

2003
PhD Colorado State University
 (William Lauenroth)



2003-2005
2005-2006
Post-doc UC Santa Barbara
Post-doc National Center for
Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis (NCEAS)
2006-Present Assistant Professor
 Utah State University

2008-Present Adjunct Professor
 Colorado State University







1999
2006
2006
2008
2008
2010
2011
NSF DDIG
NSF
NSF
NSF
USDA
Berryman Institute
NSF (CAREER)
TOTAL
$ 18,000
$ 170,000
$ 50,000
$ 37,000
$ 52,000
$ 16,500
$ 710,000
$1,053,500






Ecological effects of grazing
Patterns of species richness
Coexistence
Climate change and species interactions
Long-term quadrat datasets
NutNet
Wikipedia



SAR exists because as you sample greater
areas you are sampling more individuals
(spatial turnover)
If you sample the same area over time you
should also be sampling more individuals
(temporal turnover)
Proposed by Preston in 1960
shortgrass communities
ecotone
little bluestem communities
Adler and Lauenroth 2003

General species-time-area relationship
Adler and Lauenroth 2003

Full power model (includes area, time and area*time
interaction) supported by:









Kansas plants
Arizona winter annual plants
Arizona summer annual plants
California intertidal algae
California intertidal invertebrates
Kansas small mammals
Arizona rodents
Northern temperate lakes zooplankton
SAR and STR are not independent! They are two
parts of one relationship (STAR)
Adler et al. 2005
Adler et al. 2007

Objectives
 Quantify stabilizing effect of niche differences
 Compare relative strength of stabilizing
mechanisms and fitness differences
 Partition stabilizing effect (temporal fluctuation
vs. individual life stages)

22 years of demographic data from a
sagebrush steppe
Adler et al. 2010
Table 1. Matrices of interaction coefficients for the vital rate regressions
Recruitment
ARTR
HECO
POSE
PSSP
Growth
ARTR
HECO
POSE
PSSP
Survival
ARTR
HECO
POSE
PSSP
ARTR
−0.0731*
0.0224
0.0041
0.0389*
HECO
−0.2425*
−0.5471*
−0.1155*
−0.1330*
POSE
−0.2911
−0.2035
−1.1114*
−0.1576
PSSP
−0.0360
−0.0541
−0.0032
−0.6007*
−0.0022
−0.0002†
0.0000
−0.0002*
0.0264†
−0.0960*
0.0118
−0.0039
0.0148
−0.0060
−0.1095*
−0.0016
0.0037
−0.0026
−0.0052*
−0.0452*
−0.0233*
0.0003
0.0003
0.0019*
−0.0180
−0.9466*
−0.0193
−0.0016
0.0217
0.0197
−1.0280*
0.0216
0.0162
0.0064
0.0121*
−0.1668*
Adler et al. 2010
Adler et al. 2010
Adler et al. 2010




What role does primary productivity play in
plant species richness?
Classic productivity-richness relationship is
hump-shaped curve (Rosenzweig 1993)
Empirical evidence is mixed
Analysis of 48 herbaceous-dominated plant
communities with same methods
Adler et al. 2011
Fig. 1 Locations of the 48 Nutrient Network sites that provided data for this study.
P B Adler et al. Science 2011;333:1750-1753
Published by AAAS
Fig. 2 Within-site relationships between productivity, measured as peak live biomass (dry
weight) and species richness.
P B Adler et al. Science 2011;333:1750-1753
Published by AAAS
Fig. 3 Global relationship between mean productivity, measured as peak live biomass (dry
weight), and mean species richness (meters−2) at each site.
P B Adler et al. Science 2011;333:1750-1753
Published by AAAS
•Excluding
anthropogenic sites
•Using mean
productivity and
richness measures for
vegetation types with
multiple sites (i.e. 6
“annual grassland”
sites vs. only 1 “desert
grassland” and 1
“mixed grass prairie”)





Not a broad enough range of productivity values to
observe a unimodal curve
Methods unclear (“live biomass”-does this include
production from early phenological species?)
Authors dismiss “anthropogenic” sites without
explanation (not all human impacts are equal);
inclusion of “anthropogenic” sites would give the
unimodal curve
“Humped-back model” is a cornerstone of plant
ecology and this dataset is unsuitable to test it
Concern for conservation (arguments that
eutrophication from agricultural activities reduces
richness in terrestrial communities)





Attachment to traditional explanations
“Theory demonstrations” = sifting through
data to find support
“Theory investigations” = meta-analysis or
unfiltered data representative of nature
Pan et al.– no requirement for equal
representation of vegetation type
Fridley et al.—contradictions!

Permanent quadrats at five sites:







1) southern mixed prairie in Kansas (public data)
2) northern mixed prairie in Montana
3) sagebrush steppe in Idaho (public data)
4) Chihuahuan desert in New Mexico
5) Sonoran desert in Arizona
Digitized maps of every species present
http://www.cnr.usu.edu/htm/facstaff/adlerweb/adler-research



How general is our current understanding of
productivity-diversity relationships?
To what extent are plant production and
diversity co-limited by multiple nutrients in
herbaceous-dominated communities?
Under what conditions do grazers or
fertilization control plant biomass, diversity,
and composition?

To collect data from a broad range of sites in a
consistent manner to allow direct comparisons
of environment-productivity-diversity
relationships among systems around the world.

To implement a cross-site experiment requiring
only nominal investment of time and resources
by each investigator, but quantifying community
and ecosystem responses in a wide range of
herbaceous-dominated ecosystems (i.e., desert
grasslands to arctic tundra).



3 blocks x 10
treatments per block
(3 replicates per
treatment)
Addition of N, P, and
K in factorial
combination
Herbivore exclosure
Addresses bottom up and top down effects on
community structure and function

Public data
 Available to participants
 Available to public after 3 years and every three
years as new data becomes available


71 participating sites
Seven publication since 2010

Regional Contingencies in the Relationship between Aboveground Biomass and Litter in the World’s
Grasslands Lydia R. O'Halloran, Elizabeth T. Borer, Eric W. Seabloom, Andrew S. MacDougall, Elsa E. Cleland,
Rebecca L. McCulley, Sarah Hobbie, W. Stan...2013

Life-history constraints in grassland plant species: a growth-defence trade-off is the norm Eric M. Lind,
Elizabeth Borer, Eric Seabloom, Peter Adler, Jonathan D. Bakker, Dana M. Blumenthal, Mick Crawley, Kendi
Davies, Jennifer Firn, Daniel...2013

Coordinated distributed experiments: an emerging tool for testing global hypotheses in ecology and
environmental science Fraser, Lauchlan H., Hugh AL Henry, Cameron N Carlyle, Shannon R White, Carl
Beierkuhnlein, James F Cahill Jr, Brenda B Casper, Elsa Cleland, Scott L...2013

Response to Comments on “Productivity Is a Poor Predictor of Plant Species Richness” Grace, James B. ,
Peter B. Adler, Eric W. Seabloom, Elizabeth T. Borer, Helmut Hillebrand, Yann Hautier, Andy Hector, W. Stanley
Harpole, Lydia R. O...2012

Abundance of introduced species at home predicts abundance away in herbaceous communities Firn,
Jennifer, Moore, Joslin L., MacDougall, Andrew S., Borer, Elizabeth T., Seabloom, Eric W., HilleRisLambers,
Janneke, Harpole,W. Stanley,...2011

Productivity Is a Poor Predictor of Plant Species Richness Peter B. Adler, Eric W. Seabloom, Elizabeth T. Borer,
Helmut Hillebrand, Yann Hautier, Andy Hector, W. Stanley Harpole, Lydia R. O'Halloran,...2011

Phylogenetic patterns differ for native and exotic plant communities across a richness gradient in Northern
California Cadotte, M. W., E. T. Borer, E. W. Seabloom, J. Cavender-Bares, W. S. Harpole, E. Cleland, and K. F.
Davies.2010
 Linking theory to “real world”
 Keeping long term datasets alive
 Founding a global study network
Adler, P. B. and W. K. Lauenroth. 2003. The power of time: spatiotemporal
scaling of species diversity. Ecology Letters 6: 749-756.
Adler, P. B., E. P. White, W. K. Lauenroth, D. M. Kaufman, A. Rassweiler, and
J. A. Rusak. 2005. Evidence for a general species-time-area relationship.
Ecology 86: 2032-2039.
Adler, P. B., J. HilleRisLambers, and J. M. Levine. 2007. A niche for
neutrality. Ecology Letters 10: 95-104.
Adler, P. B., S. P. Ellner, and J. M. Levine. 2010. Coexistence of perennial
plants: an embarrassment of niches. Ecology Letters 13: 1019-1029.
Adler, P. B. et al. 2011. Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species
richness. Science 333: 1750-1753.
Fridley, J. D. et al. 2012. Comment on “Productivity is a poor predictor of
plant species richness.” Science 335: 1441-b.
Grace, J. B. et al. Response to comments on “Productivity is a poor
predictor of plant species richness.” Science 335: 1441-c.
Pan, X. et al. 2012. Comment on “Productivity is a poor predictor of plant
species richness.” Science 335: 1441-a.
Nutrient Network homepage: http://www.nutnet.umn.edu/