FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY:Trait-based Approaches for Bioengineering
Multifunctional Agroecosystems
Fabrice DeClerck (and friends)
Version 2.8 B
Upgrade:Now includesProvisioning, Cultural, Regulating and Support Services
Free support from more than 2 million species*
Constantly Evolving!
OS®
PhylogenyXP
experience the best of the biosphere
OS
Ph
ylog
eny
XP V
ersion
2.8 B
*number of species may be greater than 100 million
Agrobiodiversity
Agricultural biodiversity includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture, and all components of biological diversity that constitute the agroecosystem.
CBD definition of Agricultural Diversity
Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecology Letters 12:22-33
Dan Flynn, Melanie Gogol-Prokurat, Brenda Lin, Nicole Molinari, Theresa Nogeire, Bárbara Trautman Richers, Nicholas Simpson, Margie Mayfield and Fabrice DeClerck
Tilm
an e
t al
199
6
Diaz and Cabido (2001)
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
Does land use intensification reduce functional diversity?
Live Fence
Forest
Landuse Intensity
[ ]
PastureLow tree density
2°Forest
PastureHigh Tree Density
Sanchez et al
How is functional diversity lost with intensification?
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
71 Species Total
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
x
x
xx
What is functional redundancy within
taxonomic groups with land use change?
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
Forest Fragment: 25 extinct
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
x
xx
xxxx
xx
x
x
Live Fence: 41 extinctForest Fragment: 25 extinct
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
x
xx
xxxx
xx
x
x
Live Fence: 41 extinctForest Fragment: 25 extinct
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xxx
x
xxx
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
x
xx
xxxx
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxx
x
xx
x
x
Live Fence: 41 extinctForest Fragment: 25 extinct Pasture: 64 extinct
Functional Diversity Decreases with landuse Intensity
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
Agrobiodiversity and Human Nutrition
Fabrice DeClerck1,2, Jessica Fanzo2,3,
Cheryl Palm2 and Roseline Remans2
1CATIE and 2The Earth Institute at Columbia University, 3 Bioversity
Deckelbaum, Palm, Mutuo and F. DeClerck
Econutrition: the interrelationships among nutrition, human health, agriculture and food production, environmental health, and economic production
Hypotheses
• Biodiversity drives ecosystem functioning
• Human health is an ecosystem function
• Agrobiodiversity should impact human health
• The study of agrobiodiversity and human health can lead to important considerations for both sustainable development, and theoretical ecology.
F. DeClerck
Sauri Agrobiodiversity
• Over 146 plant species found• 39 Edible Species • Mean of 14 edible species per farm• Ranging from 5 - 22 edible plant species• Mean 1.5 cattle, half a sheep, a quarter
goat and 7 chickens.
F. DeClerck
Seven Traits
1) Protein2) Energy3) Vitamin A4) Vitamin C5) Iron6) Zinc7) Folates
F. DeClerck
High Protein
High Energy
High Vitamin A
F. DeClerck
Species Richness
FD
Field species richness, and functional diversity are related: r2 0.49, p<0.001
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
Farm 103801Species Richness = 19FD = 0.66
Farm 201201Species Richness = 18FD = 0.99
Farm 600102Species Richness = 10FD = 0.76
Species Richness
FD
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
Farm 201201Species Richness = 18FD = 0.99
Farm 103801Species Richness = 19FD = 0.66
Farm 600102Species Richness = 10FD = 0.76
F. D
eC
lerc
k, R
em
an
s, F
an
zo a
nd
Pa
lm (
20
10
)
High functional agrobiodiversity decreases probability of anemia
Species richness and anemia, R2 =0.05
Functional diversity and anemia R2= 0.13
F. D
eC
lerc
k, R
em
an
s, F
an
zo a
nd
Pa
lm (
20
10
)
Table 1. Nutrients and nutrient groups taken into account for calculation of FD metrics. From the 51 required nutrients for human diets, 17 nutrients that are key for human diets and for which reliable plant composition data were available in the literature were selected. Because plants are not a proven source for Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D, these were not included.
Macronutrients Minerals Vitamins
Protein Calcium (Ca) Vitamin A
Carbohydrates Iron (Fe) Vitamin C
Dietary fibre Potassium (K) Thiamin
Fat Magnesium (Mg) Riboflavin
Manganese (Mn) Folate
Zinc (Zn) Niacin
Sulfur (S)
Remans, Flynn, DeClerck et al. PloS One (2010)
Zinc
F. DeClerck F. D
eC
lerc
k, R
em
an
s, F
an
zo a
nd
Pa
lm (
20
10
)
Zinc
F. DeClerck F. D
eC
lerc
k, R
em
an
s, F
an
zo a
nd
Pa
lm (
20
10
)
Zinc
F. DeClerck F. D
eC
lerc
k, R
em
an
s, F
an
zo a
nd
Pa
lm (
20
10
)
Zinc
F. DeClerck F. D
eC
lerc
k, R
em
an
s, F
an
zo a
nd
Pa
lm (
20
10
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
Number of Nutritional Functions
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n o
f B
D t
o N
utr
itio
n
F. D
eC
lerc
k, R
em
an
s, F
an
zo a
nd
Pa
lm (
20
10
)
Figure 2. Nutritional Functional Diversity and Species richness for 170 farms in Sauri (☐), Mwandama (Δ) and Ruhiira ()
Remans, Flynn, DeClerck et al. PloS One (2010)
Figure 3. Observed versus expected Nutritional Functional Diversity for 170 farms in Sauri (☐), Mwandama (Δ) and Ruhiira (). Farms that have observed FD values that significantly differ from expected FD values are in bold.
Remans, Flynn, DeClerck et al. PloS One (2010)
Land-use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response diversity in plant communities. Ecology Letters 13:76-86
Etienne Laliberté, Jessie Wells, Fabrice DeClerck, Dan Metcalfe, Isabelle Aubin, Carla Catterall, Cibele Queiroz, Stephen Bonser, Yi Ding, Sean McNamara, Jen Fraterrigo, John Morgan,
Peter Vesk, Margie Mayfield.
Response diversity
“Of increasing concern is the loss of species that have similar ecosystem effects but differ in their environmental responses. This latter role of diversity (…) may be one of the most important mechanisms by which we sustain the long-term functioning of ecosystems and the services they provide to society.”
Chapin et al. 1997 Science
Ecological redundancy
1
2
3
4
5
6
• Redundancy = number of species within a functional group• High redundancy = high resilience to environmental change• Why? compensatory responses
Functionalgroups 1 to 6
Group 6: higherredundancy& resilience
Group 6: lowerredundancy& resilience
Measuring response diversity
• Volume of the minimum convex hull formed by species within a functional group, in response trait space
• From 2 to n response traits
• Represents the range of “response strategies” found within a functional group
• Larger volume = higher resilience
Convex hull volume
Measuring response diversity
Convex hull volume
Functional trait Effect ResponseSpecific leaf area (SLA) XWood density XGrowth form XHeight XLeaf phenology X XNutrient uptake strategy X XPhotosynthetic pathway X XRaunkiaer life form XClonality XDispersal mode XLeaf size XMaximum propagule longevity XPhysical defense XPollination syndrome XResprouting ability XSeed mass XLifespan X
Costa Rica728(3)
Nicaragua240(2)
Quebec243 (1)
New Zealand54(1)
Australian RF1028 (4)
China453 (2)
USA, NC 38(1)
Australian WL52(1)
Portugual110 (1)
Laos 53(1)
Study Sites, Species Richness (landscapes)
± 3000 species; 17 landscapes; 17 functional traits
a) Species in effect trait space
a) Species in effect trait space
b) Functional effect groups
1
2
3
4
5
6
a) Species in effect trait space
b) Functional effect groups
1
2
3
4
5
6
Nat
ura
lS
emi-
nat
ura
lL
ow
-in
ten
sity
agri
cult
ura
lH
igh
-in
ten
sity
agri
cult
ura
l
c) Species in each land use
a) Species in effect trait space
b) Functional effect groups
1
2
3
4
5
6
Nat
ura
lS
emi-
nat
ura
lL
ow
-in
ten
sity
agri
cult
ura
lH
igh
-in
ten
sity
agri
cult
ura
l
c) Species in each land use
e) Spearmanρbetween land use intensity and response
diversity
Res
po
nse
div
ersi
ty
Land use intensity
ρ = -0.9
d) Functional dispersion (response diversity) for
each effect group in each land use
Effect size formeta-analysis
r = -0.22p = 0.0003
Redundancy decreases with land use intensification
Correlation coefficientr
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Nicaragua (Matiguas)Australia sub-tropics 1Nicaragua (Rivas)Australia WT (Atherton)China (Hainan lowland)USA (North Carolina)New ZealandAustralia sub-tropics 2Costa Rica (La Palma)China (Hainan montane)Australia WL (NSW)PortugalCosta Rica (Las Cruces)LaosQuebecAustralia WT (Tully)Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez)
Summary
r = -0.091p = 0.048
Response diversity decreases as well, but less so
Correlation coefficientr
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Nicaragua (Matiguas)Australia sub-tropics 1Nicaragua (Rivas)Australia WT (Atherton)China (Hainan lowland)USA (North Carolina)New ZealandAustralia sub-tropics 2Costa Rica (La Palma)China (Hainan montane)Australia WL (NSW)PortugalCosta Rica (Las Cruces)LaosQuebecAustralia WT (Tully)Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez)
Summary
Correlation coefficientr
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Nicaragua (Matiguas)Australia sub-tropics 1Nicaragua (Rivas)Australia WT (Atherton)China (Hainan lowland)USA (North Carolina)New ZealandAustralia sub-tropics 2Costa Rica (La Palma)China (Hainan montane)Australia WL (NSW)PortugalCosta Rica (Las Cruces)LaosQuebecAustralia WT (Tully)Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez)
Summary
Redundancy Response diversity
Towards Multifunctional Landscapes
• Ecological Aspects– What are the driving mechanisms behind ES
• Species richness, composition, functional diversity arrangement.
• Social and Economic Drivers– How do communities organize to impact change– Integration of multiple stakeholders in ecoagricultural
landscapes.• Does the ES paradigm provide conservation and
development goals?
Thanks!
THANKS!!!