Making ecology really global.

Ecology must flourish globally, especially in a period of unprecedented anthropogenic global change. However, some regions dominate the ecological literature. Multiple barriers prevent global production and exchange of ecological knowledge. The first step towards solutions is acknowledging and diagnosing this inequality and embracing our geographical and cultural diversity.

Globally, plant-soil feedbacks are weak predictors of plant abundance.

Plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs) have been shown to strongly affect plant performance under controlled conditions, and PSFs are thought to have far reaching consequences for plant population dynamics and the structuring of plant communities. However, thus far the relationship between PSF and plant species abundance in the field is not consistent. Here, we synthesize PSF experiments from tropical forests to semiarid grasslands, and test for a positive relationship between plant abundance in the field and PSFs estimated from controlled bioassays. We meta-analyzed results from 22 PSF experiments and found an overall positive correlation (0.12 ≤  r ¯  ≤ 0.32) between plant abundance in the field and PSFs across plant functional types (herbaceous and woody plants) but also variation by plant functional type. Thus, our analysis provides quantitative support that plant abundance has a general albeit weak positive relationship with PSFs across ecosystems. Overall, our results suggest that harmful soil biota tend to accumulate around and disproportionately impact species that are rare. However, data for the herbaceous species, which are most common in the literature, had no significant abundance-PSFs relationship. Therefore, we conclude that further work is needed within and across biomes, succession stages and plant types, both under controlled and field conditions, while separating PSF effects from other drivers (e.g., herbivory, competition, disturbance) of plant abundance to tease apart the role of soil biota in causing patterns of plant rarity versus commonness.

Global effects of non-native tree species on multiple ecosystem services.

Non-native tree (NNT) species have been transported worldwide to create or enhance services that are fundamental for human well-being, such as timber provision, erosion control or ornamental value; yet NNTs can also produce undesired effects, such as fire proneness or pollen allergenicity. Despite the variety of effects that NNTs have on multiple ecosystem services, a global quantitative assessment of their costs and benefits is still lacking. Such information is critical for decision-making, management and sustainable exploitation of NNTs. We present here a global assessment of NNT effects on the three main categories of ecosystem services, including regulating (RES), provisioning (PES) and cultural services (CES), and on an ecosystem disservice (EDS), i.e. pollen allergenicity. By searching the scientific literature, country forestry reports, and social media, we compiled a global data set of 1683 case studies from over 125 NNT species, covering 44 countries, all continents but Antarctica, and seven biomes. Using different meta-analysis techniques, we found that, while NNTs increase most RES (e.g. climate regulation, soil erosion control, fertility and formation), they decrease PES (e.g. NNTs contribute less than native trees to global timber provision). Also, they have different effects on CES (e.g. increase aesthetic values but decrease scientific interest), and no effect on the EDS considered. NNT effects on each ecosystem (dis)service showed a strong context dependency, varying across NNT types, biomes and socio-economic conditions. For instance, some RES are increased more by NNTs able to fix atmospheric nitrogen, and when the ecosystem is located in low-latitude biomes; some CES are increased more by NNTs in less-wealthy countries or in countries with higher gross domestic products. The effects of NNTs on several ecosystem (dis)services exhibited some synergies (e.g. among soil fertility, soil formation and climate regulation or between aesthetic values and pollen allergenicity), but also trade-offs (e.g. between fire regulation and soil erosion control). Our analyses provide a quantitative understanding of the complex synergies, trade-offs and context dependencies involved for the effects of NNTs that is essential for attaining a sustained provision of ecosystem services.

Seed predation does not explain pine invasion success.

Why some non-native plant species invade, and others fail remains an elusive question. Plant invasion success has been associated with specific species traits. Yet, we have limited knowledge of the mechanisms relating these traits to invasion potential. General patterns of biotic resistance by seed predation may provide a mechanism that helps separate invasive from non-invasive plants. Seed predation is an important barrier against plant establishment for many plant species. It may, therefore, create a selective filter against non-native plant establishment based on plant traits related to seed predation rate. In two cafeteria-style seed predation experiments in a steppe ecosystem in Patagonia (Argentina) we provided seeds of 16 non-native Pinaceae covering a 300-fold variation in seed mass, a 200-fold variation in seed volume and 75-fold variation in seed toughness. Seed removal decreased with seed mass and seed volume. Seed toughness was not a significant predictor while seed volume was the best predictor of predators' preference. However, for species of this family small seed size is the most important predictor of species invasiveness. Our results show that seed predation does not explain Pinaceae invasive success. In our system, species that have smaller seeds (i.e., more invasive) are preferentially consumed by seed predators. Seed mass was not the best predictor of granivory rates, despite being the seed trait on which most studies have been focused. Our ability to predict future invasion and understand invasion success could benefit from other studies that focus on the mechanisms behind invasive traits.

Native and non-native ruderals experience similar plant-soil feedbacks and neighbor effects in a system where they coexist.

Recent applications of coexistence theory to plant invasions posit that non-natives establish in resident communities through either niche differences or traits conferring them with fitness advantages, the former being associated with coexistence and the latter with dominance and competitive exclusion. Plant-soil feedback is a mechanism that is known to explain both coexistence and dominance. In a system where natives and non-natives appear to coexist, we explored how plant-soil feedbacks affect the performance of nine native and nine non-native ruderal species-the prevalent life-history strategy among non-natives-when grown alone and with a phytometer. We also conducted field samplings to estimate the abundance of the 18 species, and related feedbacks to abundances. We found that groups of native and non-native ruderals displayed similar frequencies of negative, positive, and neutral feedbacks, resulting in no detectable differences between natives and non-natives. Likewise, the phytometer exerted comparable negative impacts on native and non-native plants, which were unchanged by plant-soil feedbacks. Finally, feedbacks explained plant abundances only after removing one influential species which exhibited strong positive feedbacks but low abundance. Importantly, however, four out of five species with negative feedbacks were rare in the field. These findings suggest that soil feedbacks and plant-plant interactions do not confer an advantage to non-native over native species, but do contribute to the observed coexistence of these groups in the system. By comparing natives and non-natives with overlapping abundances and strategies, our work broadens understanding of the consequences of plant-soil feedbacks in plant invasion and, more generally, coexistence within plant communities.