↓ Skip to main content

Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
692 Mendeley
Title
Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity
Published in
Nature, September 2017
DOI 10.1038/nature23886
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Emmett Duffy, Casey M. Godwin, Bradley J. Cardinale

Abstract

More than 500 controlled experiments have collectively suggested that biodiversity loss reduces ecosystem productivity and stability. Yet the importance of biodiversity in sustaining the world's ecosystems remains controversial, largely because of the lack of validation in nature, where strong abiotic forcing and complex interactions are assumed to swamp biodiversity effects. Here we test this assumption by analysing 133 estimates reported in 67 field studies that statistically separated the effects of biodiversity on biomass production from those of abiotic forcing. Contrary to the prevailing opinion of the previous two decades that biodiversity would have rare or weak effects in nature, we show that biomass production increases with species richness in a wide range of wild taxa and ecosystems. In fact, after controlling for environmental covariates, increases in biomass with biodiversity are stronger in nature than has previously been documented in experiments and comparable to or stronger than the effects of other well-known drivers of productivity, including climate and nutrient availability. These results are consistent with the collective experimental evidence that species richness increases community biomass production, and suggest that the role of biodiversity in maintaining productive ecosystems should figure prominently in global change science and policy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 278 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 692 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 692 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 172 25%
Researcher 142 21%
Student > Master 91 13%
Student > Bachelor 57 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 39 6%
Other 115 17%
Unknown 76 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 296 43%
Environmental Science 206 30%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 27 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 1%
Engineering 6 <1%
Other 32 5%
Unknown 116 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 255. 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 01 May 2020.
All research outputs
#63,762
of 15,550,283 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#6,119
of 74,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,507
of 273,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#171
of 816 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,550,283 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 273,602 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 816 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.