↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of the strength of biodiversity effects across multiple functions

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
345 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of the strength of biodiversity effects across multiple functions
Published in
Oecologia, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00442-012-2589-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric Allan, Wolfgang W. Weisser, Markus Fischer, Ernst-Detlef Schulze, Alexandra Weigelt, Christiane Roscher, Jussi Baade, Romain L. Barnard, Holger Beßler, Nina Buchmann, Anne Ebeling, Nico Eisenhauer, Christof Engels, Alexander J. F. Fergus, Gerd Gleixner, Marlén Gubsch, Stefan Halle, Alexandra M. Klein, Ilona Kertscher, Annely Kuu, Markus Lange, Xavier Le Roux, Sebastian T. Meyer, Varvara D. Migunova, Alexandru Milcu, Pascal A. Niklaus, Yvonne Oelmann, Esther Pašalić, Jana S. Petermann, Franck Poly, Tanja Rottstock, Alexander C. W. Sabais, Christoph Scherber, Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, Stefan Scheu, Sibylle Steinbeiss, Guido Schwichtenberg, Vicky Temperton, Teja Tscharntke, Winfried Voigt, Wolfgang Wilcke, Christian Wirth, Bernhard Schmid

Abstract

In order to predict which ecosystem functions are most at risk from biodiversity loss, meta-analyses have generalised results from biodiversity experiments over different sites and ecosystem types. In contrast, comparing the strength of biodiversity effects across a large number of ecosystem processes measured in a single experiment permits more direct comparisons. Here, we present an analysis of 418 separate measures of 38 ecosystem processes. Overall, 45 % of processes were significantly affected by plant species richness, suggesting that, while diversity affects a large number of processes not all respond to biodiversity. We therefore compared the strength of plant diversity effects between different categories of ecosystem processes, grouping processes according to the year of measurement, their biogeochemical cycle, trophic level and compartment (above- or belowground) and according to whether they were measures of biodiversity or other ecosystem processes, biotic or abiotic and static or dynamic. Overall, and for several individual processes, we found that biodiversity effects became stronger over time. Measures of the carbon cycle were also affected more strongly by plant species richness than were the measures associated with the nitrogen cycle. Further, we found greater plant species richness effects on measures of biodiversity than on other processes. The differential effects of plant diversity on the various types of ecosystem processes indicate that future research and political effort should shift from a general debate about whether biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem functions to focussing on the specific functions of interest and ways to preserve them individually or in combination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 4 1%
Brazil 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Other 10 3%
Unknown 313 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 21%
Researcher 68 20%
Student > Master 57 17%
Professor 22 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 56 16%
Unknown 52 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 156 45%
Environmental Science 86 25%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 15 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 <1%
Social Sciences 3 <1%
Other 12 3%
Unknown 70 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,058,589
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#312
of 4,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,074
of 283,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#1
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.