Hubbry Logo
Productivity (ecology)Productivity (ecology)Main
Open search
Productivity (ecology)
Community hub
Productivity (ecology)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Productivity (ecology)
Productivity (ecology)
Productivity (ecology)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Biology
Key components
Branches
Research
Applications

In ecology, the term productivity refers to the rate of generation of biomass in an ecosystem, usually expressed in units of mass per volume (unit surface) per unit of time, such as grams per square metre per day (g m−2 d−1). The unit of mass can relate to dry matter or to the mass of generated carbon. The productivity of autotrophs, such as plants, is called primary productivity, while the productivity of heterotrophs, such as animals, is called secondary productivity.[1]

The productivity of an ecosystem is influenced by a wide range of factors, including nutrient availability, temperature, and water availability. Understanding ecological productivity is vital because it provides insights into how ecosystems function and the extent to which they can support life.[2]

Primary production

[edit]
Main article: Primary production

Primary production is the synthesis of organic material from inorganic molecules. Primary production in most ecosystems is dominated by the process of photosynthesis, In which organisms synthesize organic molecules from sunlight, H2O, and CO2.[3] Aquatic primary productivity refers to the production of organic matter, such as phytoplankton, aquatic plants, and algae, in aquatic ecosystems, which include oceans, lakes, and rivers. Terrestrial primary productivity refers to the organic matter production that takes place in terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, grasslands, and wetlands.

Primary production is divided into Net Primary Production (NPP) and Gross Primary Production (GPP). Gross primary production measures all carbon assimilated into organic molecules by primary producers.[4] Net primary production measures the organic molecules by primary producers. Net primary production also measures the amount of carbon assimilated into organic molecules by primary producers, but does not include organic molecules that are then broken down again by these organism for biological processes such as cellular respiration.[5] The formula used to calculate NPP is net primary production = gross primary production - respiration.

Primary producers

[edit]

Photoautotrophs

[edit]
Photoautotrophy

Organisms that rely on light energy to fix carbon, and thus participate in primary production, are referred to as photoautotrophs.[6]

Photoautotrophs exists across the tree of life. Many bacterial taxa are known to be photoautotrophic such as cyanobacteria[7] and some Pseudomonadota (formerly proteobacteria).[8] Eukaryotic organisms gained the ability to participate in photosynthesis through the development of plastids derived from endosymbiotic relationships.[9] Archaeplastida, which includes red algae, green algae, and plants, have evolved chloroplasts originating from an ancient endosymbiotic relationship with an Alphaproteobacteria.[10] The productivity of plants, while being photoautotrophs, is also dependent on factors such as salinity and abiotic stressors from the surrounding environment.[11] The rest of the eukaryotic photoautotrophic organisms are within the SAR clade (Comprising Stramenopila, Alveolata, and Rhizaria). Organisms in the SAR clade that developed plastids did so through a secondary or a tertiary endosymbiotic relationships with green algae and/or red algae.[12] The SAR clade includes many aquatic and marine primary producers such as Kelp, Diatoms, and Dinoflagellates.[12]

Lithoautotrophs

[edit]
Chemosynthetic Microbial Mat

The other process of primary production is lithoautotrophy. Lithoautotrophs use reduced chemical compounds such as hydrogen gas, hydrogen sulfide, methane, or ferrous ion to fix carbon and participate in primary production. Lithoautotrophic organisms are prokaryotic and are represented by members of both the bacterial and archaeal domains.[13] Lithoautotrophy is the only form of primary production possible in ecosystems without light such as ground-water ecosystems,[14] hydrothermal vent ecosystems,[15] soil ecosystems,[16] and cave ecosystems.[17]

Secondary production

[edit]

Secondary production is the generation of biomass of heterotrophic (consumer) organisms in a system. This is driven by the transfer of organic material between trophic levels, and represents the quantity of new tissue created through the use of assimilated food. Secondary production is sometimes defined to only include consumption of primary producers by herbivorous consumers[18] (with tertiary production referring to carnivorous consumers),[19] but is more commonly defined to include all biomass generation by heterotrophs.[1]

Organisms responsible for secondary production include animals, protists, fungi and many bacteria.[citation needed]

Secondary production can be estimated through a number of different methods including increment summation, removal summation, the instantaneous growth method and the Allen curve method.[20] The choice between these methods will depend on the assumptions of each and the ecosystem under study. For instance, whether cohorts should be distinguished, whether linear mortality can be assumed and whether population growth is exponential.[citation needed]

Net ecosystem production is defined as the difference between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration.[21] The formula to calculate net ecosystem production is NEP = GPP - respiration (by autotrophs) - respiration (by heterotrophs).[22] The key difference between NPP and NEP is that NPP focuses primarily on autotrophic production, whereas NEP incorporates the contributions of other aspects of the ecosystem to the total carbon budget.[23]

Productivity

[edit]

Following is the list of ecosystems in order of decreasing productivity. [citation needed]

Producer Biomass productivity (gC/m²/yr)
Swamps and Marshes 2,500
Coral reefs 2,000
Algal beds 2,000
River estuaries 1,800
Temperate forests 1,250
Cultivated lands 650
Tundras 140
Open ocean 125

Species diversity and productivity relationship

[edit]

The connection between plant productivity and biodiversity is a significant topic in ecology, although it has been controversial for decades. Both productivity and species diversity are constricted by other variables such as climate, ecosystem type, and land use intensity.[24] According to some research on the correlation between plant diversity and ecosystem functioning is that productivity increases as species diversity increases.[25] One reasoning for this is that the likelihood of discovering a highly productive species increases as the number of species initially present in an ecosystem increases.[25][26]

Other researchers believe that the relationship between species diversity and productivity is unimodal within an ecosystem.[27] A 1999 study on grassland ecosystems in Europe, for example, found that increasing species diversity initially increased productivity but gradually leveled off at intermediate levels of diversity.[28] More recently, a meta-analysis of 44 studies from various ecosystem types observed that the interaction between diversity and production was unimodal in all but one study.[29]

Human interactions

[edit]

Anthropogenic activities (human activities) have impacted the productivity and biomass of several ecosystems. Examples of these activities include habitat modification, freshwater consumption, an increase in nutrients due to fertilizers, and many others.[30] Increased nutrients can stimulate an algal bloom in waterbodies, increasing primary production but making the ecosystem less stable.[31] This would raise secondary production and have a trophic cascade effect across the food chain, ultimately increasing overall ecosystem productivity.[32] In lakes, these human impacts can "mask" the effects of climate change.[33] Algal biomass is causally related to climate in some lakes, with temporary or long-term shifts in productivity (regime shifts).[33]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Productivity (ecology)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![Photoautotrophy process][float-right] In ecology, productivity denotes the rate at which living organisms in an ecosystem synthesize new organic matter from inorganic substrates, typically measured as biomass accumulation per unit area or volume over time. This process underpins energy transfer through trophic levels, with primary productivity representing the fixation of energy by autotrophs—primarily via photosynthesis in photoautotrophs or chemosynthesis in specialized microbes—yielding gross primary production (GPP) as the total energy captured before respiratory losses, and net primary production (NPP) as the remainder available for growth and higher consumers. Secondary productivity, in contrast, quantifies biomass generation by heterotrophs, such as herbivores and predators, constrained by the efficiency of energy transfer, often around 10% between trophic levels due to thermodynamic limits and metabolic demands. Ecosystem productivity varies markedly by environment: terrestrial systems like tropical forests exhibit high NPP (up to 2,000 g C/m²/year) driven by ample light and , while open oceans, despite low per-area rates, contribute over 50% of global owing to their expanse. techniques include direct harvesting, oxygen evolution assays, and isotopic tracers like ¹⁴C uptake to estimate carbon fixation rates, though challenges persist in scaling from local plots to global models amid heterogeneous conditions. Productivity metrics are foundational for assessing , potential, and responses to perturbations like nutrient enrichment or shifts, informing causal links between biophysical drivers and trophic dynamics without reliance on aggregated indices prone to oversimplification.

Core Concepts

Definition and Historical Development

In ecology, productivity refers to the rate at which biomass is generated within an ecosystem, typically measured as the mass of organic matter produced per unit area per unit time. This encompasses both primary productivity, the synthesis of organic compounds by autotrophs such as plants and algae via photosynthesis or chemosynthesis, and secondary productivity, the biomass accrual by heterotrophs through consumption. Units commonly include grams of carbon per square meter per year (g C m⁻² yr⁻¹), reflecting the conversion of inorganic carbon into fixed organic forms that sustain trophic levels./46%3A_Ecosystems/46.02%3A_Energy_Flow_through_Ecosystems/46.2B%3A_Productivity_within_Trophic_Levels) The conceptual foundations of ecological productivity trace to early 20th-century advances in understanding energy flow in natural systems. Arthur Tansley formalized the ecosystem as a unit of study in 1935, integrating biotic and abiotic components and enabling quantitative assessments of material and energy cycling. Raymond Lindeman's 1942 paper, "The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology," marked a pivotal shift by modeling ecosystems as dynamic energy transformers across trophic levels, emphasizing production rates as central to stability and succession in aquatic systems like lakes. This trophic-dynamic framework resolved earlier ambiguities in productivity terminology, distinguishing gross production (total assimilation) from net production (after respiration losses). Post-World War II developments accelerated empirical measurement and modeling. Eugene Odum's 1953 textbook Fundamentals of Ecology popularized energy-based analysis, building on Lindeman to quantify productivity in diverse habitats. Howard T. Odum's late-1950s studies introduced rigorous techniques for whole- energy budgets, including silver spring experiments that estimated primary productivity via and carbon fixation rates, achieving resolutions down to 1-10 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹ in specific locales. These efforts established productivity as a keystone metric for biogeochemical cycles, influencing global estimates that reached ~100-120 Pg C yr⁻¹ for terrestrial net primary productivity by the .

Types of Productivity: Gross, Net, and Efficiency Metrics

In ecological systems, gross primary productivity (GPP) represents the total rate at which autotrophs, such as plants and algae, convert or into organic compounds through or , typically measured in units of carbon fixed or captured per unit area per time. This metric encompasses all fixed before any losses, serving as the foundational input for ecosystem energy flow. Net primary productivity (NPP) is derived by subtracting the energy expended in autotrophic respiration from GPP, yielding the actual available for growth, , and transfer to higher trophic levels. Globally, NPP varies by , with tropical forests exhibiting rates up to 2,200 g C/m²/year, reflecting environmental constraints like and nutrients. This distinction highlights that only a fraction of GPP—often 30-70% depending on and conditions—persists as net gain after metabolic costs. For heterotrophic consumers, gross secondary productivity (GSP) quantifies the total or assimilated from ingested food after accounting for indigestible waste like , representing the initial intake available for and growth. Net secondary productivity (NSP) further deducts respiratory losses from GSP, indicating the true increment in consumer over time, which fuels subsequent trophic transfers. Secondary production rates are empirically lower than primary, with herbivores often achieving NSP of 10-20% of assimilated due to high metabolic demands. Efficiency metrics evaluate the conversion effectiveness across these types. Production efficiency for secondary producers, calculated as NSP divided by assimilated energy, typically ranges from 10% in endotherms to over 40% in invertebrates, reflecting physiological differences in energy allocation. Trophic transfer efficiency, the ratio of NSP at one level to NPP at the prior level, averages about 10% per step, constraining energy availability in food chains and explaining pyramid structures in biomass. These metrics underscore systemic energy dissipation, with cumulative losses often exceeding 90% from primary to top consumers, as verified through flux measurements in diverse ecosystems.

Primary Productivity

Mechanisms of Primary Production

Primary production predominantly occurs via photosynthesis, the process by which photoautotrophs—such as terrestrial plants, algae, and cyanobacteria—convert light energy into chemical energy stored in organic molecules. This mechanism fixes atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) into carbohydrates using water (H₂O) as an electron donor, releasing oxygen (O₂) as a byproduct, as summarized by the equation: 6CO₂ + 6H₂O + light energy → C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂. The biochemical pathway comprises two main stages: light-dependent reactions in the thylakoid membranes of chloroplasts, where photosystems I and II absorb photons to drive electron transport, photolysis of water, and production of ATP and NADPH; and light-independent reactions (Calvin-Benson cycle) in the stroma, where these molecules power the enzymatic fixation of CO₂ by ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO), the most abundant enzyme on Earth. In marine and freshwater ecosystems, phytoplankton dominate photosynthetic primary production, contributing over 50% of global net primary production annually, with rates varying from 0.1 to 100 grams of carbon per square meter per year depending on nutrient availability and light penetration. Oxygenic photosynthesis, which produces O₂, evolved in cyanobacteria around 2.4 billion years ago and underpins aerobic life, though anoxygenic variants in some bacteria use alternative electron donors like hydrogen sulfide without O₂ release. A secondary mechanism, chemosynthesis, enables primary production in light-deprived environments such as deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, where chemolithoautotrophic bacteria and archaea oxidize reduced inorganic compounds (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, methane, or hydrogen) to generate energy for CO₂ fixation via pathways analogous to the Calvin cycle or reverse Krebs cycle. For instance, at vents, sulfide-oxidizing bacteria employ the reaction CO₂ + 4H₂S + 2O₂ → CH₂O + 4S + 3H₂O to yield biomass, supporting dense communities with productivity rates up to 100 grams of carbon per square meter per year, independent of sunlight. These microbes often form symbiotic associations with multicellular organisms like tubeworms, transferring fixed carbon to sustain vent ecosystems discovered in 1977. While photosynthesis accounts for the vast majority of Earth's primary production—estimated at 100-150 gigatons of carbon fixed yearly—chemosynthesis contributes negligibly to global totals but is ecologically significant in isolated, extreme habitats, highlighting the versatility of autotrophic metabolism. Both mechanisms rely on RuBisCO for carbon fixation, underscoring a conserved evolutionary core despite divergent energy sources.

Primary Producers and Their Distributions

Primary producers, or autotrophs, encompass organisms that synthesize organic compounds from inorganic sources, primarily carbon dioxide, using energy from sunlight via photosynthesis or from chemical reactions via chemosynthesis. Photoautotrophs dominate global biomass and production, with terrestrial vascular plants such as trees, shrubs, and grasses forming the bulk of land-based primary production, estimated at approximately 120 Pg C year⁻¹ globally. Non-vascular autotrophs like mosses, liverworts, and lichens are distributed across harsher terrestrial environments, including tundra, deserts, and high altitudes, where they contribute to soil stabilization and initial ecosystem development. In aquatic ecosystems, distributions vary by habitat depth and nutrient availability. Oceanic primary production relies predominantly on phytoplankton—microscopic photoautotrophs including diatoms, dinoflagellates, and cyanobacteria—which account for roughly 50% of Earth's total primary production and oxygen output despite occupying less than 1% of global photosynthetic biomass due to rapid turnover rates. In coastal and freshwater systems, larger macrophytes such as seagrasses, macroalgae, and emergent plants compete with or complement phytoplankton; for instance, in shallow lakes and estuaries, macrophytes can dominate under clear, low-turbidity conditions, while phytoplankton prevail in nutrient-enriched, turbid waters. Stream and river autotrophs typically include benthic algae, cyanobacteria, bryophytes, and submerged vascular plants attached to substrates, with production influenced by light penetration and flow velocity. Chemoautotrophic bacteria represent a specialized subset of primary producers in extreme environments lacking sunlight, such as deep-sea hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. These microbes oxidize reduced compounds like hydrogen sulfide to fix carbon, supporting unique food webs; for example, at mid-ocean ridge vents, symbiotic bacteria within tubeworms and clams enable high biomass in otherwise barren abyssal plains. Such distributions highlight how primary producers adapt to geochemical gradients, with chemosynthesis sustaining localized productivity independent of solar energy.

Secondary Productivity

Mechanisms of Secondary Production

Secondary production encompasses the processes by which heterotrophic organisms, including herbivores, carnivores, detritivores, and decomposers, synthesize new from ingested originating from primary producers or other heterotrophs. This occurs primarily through trophic transfer, where energy and nutrients flow from lower to higher trophic levels via consumption, with only a fraction converted into consumer due to thermodynamic inefficiencies. The core mechanism begins with , the uptake of food particles or prey, which supplies the organic substrates necessary for growth. Following , breaks down complex macromolecules into absorbable forms via enzymatic in the 's gut or specialized organelles. Assimilation then follows, representing the fraction of ingested absorbed across biological membranes into the 's tissues, quantified as assimilation efficiency (A/I). This efficiency varies by type and food quality: herbivores typically achieve 15-50% due to indigestible plant structures like and chemical defenses such as , while carnivores reach 60-90% owing to higher digestibility of animal tissues. Detritivores and microbial decomposers exhibit lower efficiencies, often below 20%, as contains refractory compounds like that resist breakdown. Egestion of indigestible residues, such as or pseudofeces, accounts for the unassimilated portion, minimizing energy loss but limiting overall transfer. Assimilated energy is partitioned between catabolic (respiration) and anabolic (biosynthesis) pathways. Respiration, including basal metabolism, activity costs, and heat loss, consumes the majority—often 70-90% in endotherms—for ATP production to support homeostasis and locomotion. The remainder fuels net secondary production (P), defined as the rate of biomass accrual through somatic growth, reproductive tissue formation, and storage, calculated as P = A - R (where R is respiratory loss). Production efficiency (P/A) reflects this allocation: ectothermic invertebrates average 20-50%, while homeothermic vertebrates drop to 1-3% due to elevated metabolic rates. In microbial heterotrophs, rapid cell division can yield high turnover rates, but biomass accumulation is constrained by nutrient stoichiometry and predation. These mechanisms underpin energy flow in food webs, with secondary production rates measured in units like g m⁻² y⁻¹ or kJ m⁻² y⁻¹, integrating population-level processes such as birth, , , and . Variations arise from consumer —e.g., like assimilate via mucous traps, while predators employ —and environmental factors influencing activity, though the fundamental ingestion-assimilation-production sequence remains invariant. Empirical studies confirm that disruptions, such as , can alter these rates by 20-50% through changes in prey availability or assimilation.

Trophic Transfer and Efficiency

Trophic transfer describes the passage of and energy from one to the next in an , primarily through consumption, where herbivores ingest primary producers and carnivores consume herbivores or other carnivores. This process is central to secondary , as it determines the available for higher-level consumers, with only a portion of the ingested material being assimilated and converted into consumer due to metabolic losses. Raymond Lindeman formalized this in his 1942 trophic-dynamic framework, emphasizing energy flow as the unifying principle for analyzing structure and efficiency, rather than static compartments. Trophic transfer efficiency, or Lindeman efficiency, quantifies the ratio of net production at one trophic level to the net production at the previous level, typically ranging from 5% to 20% across ecosystems, with a commonly cited average of approximately 10%. This "10% rule" emerges from empirical observations of energy dissipation, where the majority of energy is lost as heat via respiration, incomplete consumption of prey, and egestion of indigestible material. For instance, in size-structured communities, efficiencies can vary from 13% to 50% depending on predator-prey body mass ratios, with smaller ratios yielding higher transfers due to better assimilation of smaller prey. Evidence from lake food webs supports these estimates, showing transfer efficiencies that align with slopes in production-biomass relationships across multiple trophic levels. Ecological efficiency decomposes into three components: exploitation efficiency (fraction of prey production consumed), assimilation efficiency (fraction of consumed material absorbed), and production efficiency (fraction of assimilated energy converted to consumer biomass rather than respired). Exploitation efficiency varies with predator foraging strategies and prey defenses, often lower in complex webs due to alternative pathways; assimilation is higher for herbivores on plant material (20-50%) than for carnivores on animal tissue (60-90%), reflecting digestive challenges with cellulose; production efficiency decreases with body size and metabolic rate, as larger organisms respire more proportionally. In terrestrial systems, overall efficiencies tend to be lower (around 5-10%) than in aquatic ones (up to 20%) due to detrital pathways bypassing live consumption in water columns. Empirical studies underscore these limits; for example, populations exhibit Lindeman efficiencies of about 1.3%, constrained by low exploitation of production amid seasonal prey availability. Environmental factors like further modulate , with experimental warming reducing transfers by up to 56% through elevated respiration at higher levels. These inefficiencies explain the typical four-to-five trophic levels in most ecosystems, as cumulative losses (e.g., 90% per step) render higher levels unsustainable without vast basal production.

Measurement and Modeling

Empirical Measurement Techniques

Empirical measurement of primary productivity typically distinguishes between gross primary production (GPP), the total carbon fixed via photosynthesis, and net primary production (NPP), which subtracts autotrophic respiration. In terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, NPP is often estimated through repeated biomass inventories, where changes in aboveground biomass are quantified by measuring tree diameters at breast height over intervals of 1-5 years and applying species-specific allometric equations to convert dimensions to mass. Belowground NPP requires root coring or ingrowth cores, though these methods underestimate fine root turnover, which can constitute 30-50% of total NPP in forests. In grasslands, the harvest method involves clipping and weighing vegetation quadrats at regular intervals, adjusted for root contributions via soil sampling, yielding annual NPP values often ranging from 200-800 g/m² in temperate regions. For aquatic systems, the light-dark bottle technique measures GPP and community respiration by incubating water samples or ex situ, quantifying in light bottles minus dark bottle consumption, with results converted to carbon equivalents assuming a photosynthetic quotient of 1.0-1.2. The ¹⁴C assimilation method, using radiolabeled , tracks incorporated carbon under light exposure, providing integrated productivity over hours, though it may overestimate by including respired carbon. At ecosystem scales, flux towers directly measure net exchange (NEE) of CO₂ via turbulent flux, partitioning into GPP by modeling nighttime respiration and extrapolating diurnally; this has validated global GPP estimates at 120-150 Pg C/year for land surfaces. Secondary productivity, representing heterotrophic biomass accrual, is empirically assessed through or size-frequency methods for and , where individuals are sampled repeatedly to track growth increments and survivorship, converting to production via the instantaneous growth rate P = B × (g + m), with B as mean , g as specific growth rate, and m as mortality. In benthic communities, annual production is derived from size-class abundance distributions assuming von Bertalanffy growth, yielding values like 1-10 g/m²/year for macro in streams. For larger animals, such as in rivers, empirical models integrate from or trawls with size-weight relationships and turnover rates, as validated in studies predicting 0.1-5 g/m²/year based on metabolic scaling. These techniques often require corrections for sampling biases, such as escape of mobile organisms, and integrate over trophic levels to capture flow efficiencies of 10-20%.

Remote Sensing and Global Estimates

Remote sensing techniques, primarily via satellites, enable large-scale estimation of primary productivity by capturing spectral reflectance data indicative of photosynthetic activity and biomass. For terrestrial ecosystems, vegetation indices such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), derived from sensors like MODIS and AVHRR, serve as proxies for fractional photosynthetically active radiation (fPAR) absorbed by vegetation. These are integrated into light-use efficiency (LUE) models, where gross primary production (GPP) is calculated as GPP = APAR × ε, with APAR representing absorbed photosynthetically active radiation and ε the LUE modulated by environmental scalars for temperature, water stress, and phenology. Such models have been validated against eddy covariance flux tower data, though they often underestimate in dense forests due to saturation effects in spectral signals. In oceanic systems, relies on ocean color sensors like SeaWiFS and MODIS-Aqua to measure -a concentrations, which correlate with . Algorithms such as the Vertically Generalized Production Model (VGPM) then estimate net (NPP) by combining data with , , and euphotic zone depth, assuming carbon fixation efficiency varies by temperature. Multi-model ensembles from these data provide NPP estimates at 8-day or monthly resolutions from 1998 onward, revealing spatiotemporal variability driven by , stratification, and nutrient availability. Limitations include interference and inaccuracies in oligotrophic regions where subsurface maxima are missed. Global estimates derived from these methods indicate terrestrial GPP ranging from 120 to 130 Pg C yr⁻¹, with NPP approximately half that at 50–60 Pg C yr⁻¹, based on satellite-driven LUE and models calibrated against . Oceanic NPP averages around 40–50 Pg C yr⁻¹ across models, with recent analyses showing declines in nearly half of basins since the satellite era began, attributed to warming-induced stratification reducing . These figures carry uncertainties of 20–30% due to model parameterization and validation gaps, particularly in high-latitude and arid regions, but they outperform purely ground-based extrapolations by capturing seasonal and interannual dynamics. Ongoing advancements, including hyperspectral sensors and integrations, aim to refine these estimates for secondary productivity inferences via trophic modeling.

Influencing Factors

Abiotic Drivers

Abiotic drivers of ecological include , availability, supply, , and edaphic conditions, which primarily constrain and, through trophic cascades, secondary production. These factors determine resource uptake and metabolic rates in autotrophs, with limitations often following , where the scarcest resource caps overall . In terrestrial ecosystems, annual net primary (NPP) correlates strongly with and , explaining up to 70% of global variation, while aquatic systems are additionally bounded by penetration and cycling. Global terrestrial NPP averages approximately 60 Gt C yr⁻¹, with oceanic NPP at 50 Gt C yr⁻¹, both heavily modulated by these drivers. Temperature influences enzymatic kinetics in and respiration, with rates increasing exponentially up to species-specific optima (typically 15–30°C for temperate ) before declining due to denaturation or . A Q₁₀ of about 2 indicates metabolic rates double per 10°C rise within limits, but scarcity suppresses this temperature sensitivity, preventing overestimation of warming effects on productivity. In marine , elevated temperatures enhance growth under -replete conditions but exacerbate limitation otherwise, contributing to observed declines in net (NPP) amid strengthening constraints since the . Terrestrial forests show reduced productivity during heatwaves, as in Europe's event where NPP dropped 30% regionally due to drought-heat . For secondary productivity, higher temperatures accelerate , increasing energy demands and potentially lowering trophic transfer efficiency from 10–20% under cooler conditions. Light drives photosynthetic carbon fixation, with gross primary production (GPP) following a saturating hyperbolic response to irradiance, limited by the photic zone in water (average 100 m depth for 1% surface light) or canopy shading on land. In nutrient-poor lakes, red-to-blue light ratios influence algal productivity more than total intensity, highlighting quality effects. Oceanic high-nutrient low-chlorophyll (HNLC) regions demonstrate co-limitation with iron, where dust deposition boosts productivity by 20–50% locally. Seasonal light deficits at high latitudes reduce annual NPP by factors of 2–3 compared to tropics. Secondary production responds indirectly, as diminished primary output curtails consumer biomass accrual. Nutrient availability, especially nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), limits primary productivity across ecosystems; terrestrial sites are N-limited in 30–50% of cases, while P dominates in tropics and freshwater, and iron (Fe) in 20% of oceans. Experimental additions increase NPP by 20–100% in deficient systems, but chronic limitation drives global oceanic NPP declines of 0.5–1% per decade recently. Edaphic factors like soil pH (optimal 6–7 for nutrient uptake) and texture modulate bioavailability, with acidic soils reducing base cation availability and thus productivity. In secondary contexts, nutrient-driven primary surges can elevate herbivore populations, though abiotic stressors like salinity (optimal <5 ppt for freshwater consumers) impose direct physiological costs, reducing growth rates by 50% at 10 ppt. Water availability, via precipitation or hydrology, caps terrestrial NPP in arid zones (<500 mm yr⁻¹ yields <200 g C m⁻² yr⁻¹), with drought inhibiting stomatal opening and reducing CO₂ assimilation by up to 40%. Aquatic stratification limits nutrient upwelling, suppressing productivity in oligotrophic gyres.

Biotic Interactions

Competition among primary producers for resources such as light, nutrients, and space often limits individual growth and can suppress overall primary productivity, with experimental evidence showing that increased plant density reduces per-plant biomass in grasslands and forests due to resource depletion. In diverse assemblages, however, complementary resource use via niche partitioning may alleviate competitive pressures, enabling higher community-level productivity comparable in magnitude to abiotic resource additions like nitrogen fertilization. Herbivory and predation exert variable effects on primary productivity, frequently reducing it through biomass removal but occasionally enhancing it under moderate intensities via the grazing optimization mechanism, where selective grazing recycles limiting nutrients like nitrogen and prevents dominance by less productive species. Field studies in temperate grasslands have documented productivity increases of up to 81% at intermediate grazing levels compared to ungrazed controls, attributed to stimulated regrowth and improved nutrient turnover. Conversely, systematic reviews of over 100 experiments conclude that convincing evidence for net positive effects of herbivory on plant fitness or productivity remains scarce, with suppression dominating at high herbivore densities or in low-productivity systems. For secondary productivity, predation regulates consumer populations, curbing overexploitation of producers and stabilizing trophic transfer efficiencies, as modeled in exploitation ecosystems where predator control becomes more critical with rising basal productivity. Mutualistic symbioses, including mycorrhizal fungi aiding phosphorus uptake and rhizobial bacteria enabling nitrogen fixation in legumes, directly amplify primary productivity by expanding nutrient access beyond abiotic limits alone. Network analyses of plant-pollinator interactions demonstrate that mutualisms enhance ecosystem productivity, species abundance, and temporal stability, with simulated multiplex networks showing up to 20-30% higher productivity under mutualistic dynamics compared to neutral models. Herbivores can modulate these benefits; for example, grazing pressure induces greater nodule formation in legume-rhizobia symbioses, increasing plant nitrogen content and fitness by 15-25% in controlled trials. Facilitation, a positive biotic interaction where established organisms improve conditions for others (e.g., via shade, soil stabilization, or nutrient enrichment), boosts productivity especially in stressful habitats like arid or alpine zones, where it shifts community dynamics from competition-dominated to cooperative. Nurse plant experiments reveal that facilitated understory species exhibit 2-3 times higher cover and biomass, leading to elevated total ecosystem productivity through non-random assembly of stress-tolerant traits. In biodiversity experiments, overlooked facilitative effects contribute to the positive diversity-productivity relationship, with meta-analyses indicating that facilitation amplifies functioning more than expected under competitive assumptions alone. Pathogenic interactions, conversely, diminish productivity via disease-induced mortality, though their net ecosystem impacts vary with host diversity and recovery dynamics. Overall, the balance of these interactions determines productivity trajectories, with positive effects (mutualism, facilitation) often scaling with biodiversity and environmental harshness, while negative ones (competition, heavy consumption) intensify in resource-limited or high-biomass states.

Relationships with Biodiversity

Observed Patterns and Hypotheses

Empirical studies across terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems frequently reveal a unimodal (hump-shaped) relationship between richness and primary productivity, where biodiversity peaks at intermediate productivity levels and declines at both low and high extremes. This pattern holds in approximately 65% of plant-focused observational datasets using standing biomass as a productivity proxy, particularly in grasslands and forests. For instance, meta-analyses of global vegetation data show richness increasing with productivity up to roughly 500-1000 g/m²/year of aboveground net primary production (ANPP), beyond which competitive exclusion by productive dominants reduces diversity. However, the shape varies by taxon and scale: monotonic positive correlations predominate in experimental manipulations of diversity, while negative relationships emerge at large spatial scales (>1 km²) or in highly productive systems like tropical rainforests, where a few canopy monopolize resources. Scale dependence is evident, with hump-shapes more pronounced at finer resolutions (e.g., 1 m² plots) and weakening or linearizing at broader extents due to heterogeneity. In forests, a positive but saturating relationship often appears, with species richness correlating with productivity up to high levels (e.g., >20 Mg/ha/year stemwood production), after which evenness rather than raw richness drives further gains, as dominant trees suppress understory diversity. Aquatic systems show similar variability; lake phytoplankton richness peaks at moderate nutrient-driven productivity, declining under eutrophication from algal blooms that favor few tolerant species. Cross-ecosystem syntheses confirm that while low productivity constrains richness via energy limitation (e.g., <200 g/m²/year ANPP in deserts yielding <10 species/m²), high productivity (>1500 g/m²/year in wetlands) fosters monodominance, as observed in 48 intercontinental low-vegetation studies where only 5% showed strict hump-shapes but many exhibited downturns at extremes. Several hypotheses explain these patterns through resource dynamics and species interactions. The more individuals hypothesis posits that elevated productivity at intermediate levels supports larger populations, increasing the probabilistic sampling of rare species from regional pools without overwhelming competition. The niche partitioning hypothesis suggests that moderate resource availability enables finer subdivision of niches, allowing coexistence via resource specialization, whereas extremes homogenize conditions—scarcity via physiological stress, abundance via reduced selection for efficiency. At high productivity, competition-colonization trade-off and exploitative competition hypotheses predict dominance by fast-growing, interference-competent species that exclude subordinates, as evidenced by evolutionary models where productivity gradients select for traits favoring rapid resource capture over diversity maintenance. Scale-dependent variants incorporate spatial heterogeneity, hypothesizing that productivity gradients amplify beta-diversity (turnover) at intermediate levels, buffering against local extinctions. These mechanisms align with first-principles of energy flux constraining assembly, though empirical support varies, with observational data prone to confounding by environmental covariates like disturbance.

Controversies in Causality and Evidence

The relationship between ecological and has been characterized by persistent debates over , with revealing weak, reciprocal, or even opposing effects rather than unidirectional drivers. Observational studies frequently report positive correlations between primary and across ecosystems, suggesting that higher energy availability could support more niches and thus greater diversity. However, establishing is confounded by shared environmental drivers like and nutrients, which influence both variables independently, complicating inferences from . Experimental manipulations, such as biodiversity-ecosystem functioning (BEF) studies, have often demonstrated that increased plant diversity enhances through complementarity and reduced competitive dominance, as seen in long-term experiments where diverse assemblages outperformed monocultures by up to 50% in production after eight years. Yet, these findings are criticized for relying on artificial setups in small plots, which may overestimate positive feedbacks due to sampling effects—wherein diverse plots disproportionately include high-performing —and fail to capture natural feedbacks or large-scale dynamics. Causal inference methods applied to longitudinal observational data have intensified controversies by revealing effects contrary to experimental paradigms. A 2023 analysis of plot-level data from natural ecosystems using panel methods and fixed effects estimated that a 10% increase in caused a 2.4% decline in , attributing this to increased competitive interactions and inefficient resource partitioning among co-occurring species, rather than synergistic gains. This challenges the BEF emphasis on diversity as a productivity enhancer, suggesting that in unmanaged systems, higher diversity may reflect historical contingencies or disturbance legacies rather than a causal boost to accumulation. Similarly, a 2024 study of managed grasslands employing found only weak reciprocal relationships, with exerting minimal influence on subsequent diversity changes (standardized coefficient <0.1), and vice versa, after controlling for abiotic covariates like precipitation and nitrogen levels. These results highlight endogeneity issues in prior correlations, where unmeasured factors such as herbivory or dispersal limitations drive apparent links. Further evidence underscores scale-dependence and mechanistic ambiguities, undermining broad causal claims. At local scales, nutrient enrichment experiments simulating high productivity often reduce plant diversity by favoring dominant species, supporting the hump-shaped productivity-diversity relationship where intermediate productivity maximizes richness, as documented in meta-analyses of over 100 fertilization trials showing diversity declines of 20-50% under elevated nitrogen. Conversely, at regional scales, macroecological patterns imply productivity as a diversity driver via energy-richness models, yet experimental tests like reciprocal transplants fail to confirm this, with diversity changes tied more to habitat heterogeneity than productivity alone. Debates persist over measurement inconsistencies—e.g., gross vs. net primary productivity, or alpha vs. gamma diversity—which inflate variability across studies, and the underuse of quasi-experimental designs in ecology has left gaps in isolating causal paths amid collinear predictors. Collectively, these findings indicate that while feedbacks exist, their direction and strength vary by context, with no universal causality dominating empirical records.

Anthropogenic Influences

Land Conversion and Resource Extraction

Land conversion, including deforestation for agriculture and urbanization, substantially reduces terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP). Global analyses indicate that agricultural expansion has led to a 4.4% reduction in gross primary productivity (GPP) when compared to potential natural vegetation states. Forest-to-cropland conversions typically decrease NPP by altering vegetation structure and soil processes, with empirical studies showing losses exceeding 20% in tropical regions due to diminished canopy cover and root biomass. Urbanization further exacerbates this by replacing vegetated land with impervious surfaces, resulting in NPP declines of up to 50% in converted areas, as measured via remote sensing in urban agglomerations. Resource extraction, such as logging and mining, compounds these effects through direct biomass removal and habitat fragmentation. Selective logging in humid subtropical forests can temporarily boost light availability and individual tree growth, but overall ecosystem NPP falls due to nutrient export and soil compaction, with residues extraction reducing long-term productivity by 10-20% via diminished organic matter return. Industrial mining operations, including opencast activities, impair surrounding vegetation GPP by generating dust deposition, heavy metal contamination, and hydrological disruptions, with proximal ecosystems exhibiting NPP reductions of 15-30% as detected in satellite-derived indices. These impacts persist post-extraction, as restoration efforts often fail to recover pre-disturbance productivity levels within decades, underscoring the causal role of physical habitat alteration over secondary factors like edge effects. Quantitatively, human appropriation of NPP (HANPP) frameworks reveal that land-use conversions and extraction account for 20-25% of global terrestrial NPP losses, primarily through forgone potential production in converted biomes. While intensified agriculture may elevate NPP in managed croplands via inputs like fertilizers—sometimes approaching or exceeding native potentials—the net ecosystem effect remains negative due to biodiversity erosion and off-site spillovers, such as soil degradation amplifying erosion by over 100% in deforested agricultural frontiers. Empirical causal assessments, prioritizing plot-level data over modeled projections, confirm that these anthropogenic drivers override climatic variability in explaining observed productivity declines.

Climate Change, Pollution, and Fertilization Effects

Climate change influences ecological productivity through alterations in temperature, precipitation patterns, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, with effects varying by ecosystem and region. Rising temperatures can extend growing seasons in some temperate areas, potentially increasing gross primary productivity (GPP) by up to 10% from 1982 to 2018 due to longer growing periods, though this is offset by increased respiration rates that reduce net primary productivity (NPP). In contrast, tropical and arid regions often experience declines, with projections of 30-60% reductions in potential fish production in tropical shelf and upwelling seas from warming-induced stratification and nutrient limitations. Oceanic NPP has shown statistically significant decreases in nearly half of global ocean areas since the satellite era, driven primarily by declines in subtropical gyres and coastal upwelling zones. Terrestrial rangelands, such as those in Mongolia, exhibit productivity changes predominantly attributable to climate variability rather than land use, with drought and heat stress amplifying losses. Pollution exerts predominantly suppressive effects on primary productivity, disrupting photosynthetic processes and nutrient cycles. Tropospheric ozone, a key air pollutant, causes a global 4% loss in plant productivity during boreal summer, primarily through stomatal uptake that impairs carbon assimilation in forests and crops. In marine environments, herbicide runoff inhibits phytoplankton productivity by damaging , with global leakage potentially reducing primary production across coastal zones. Microplastics similarly hinder algal growth and photosynthetic efficiency via physical abrasion and chemical toxicity, leading to inhibitory impacts on primary producers in both freshwater and marine systems. Acidic pollutants and heavy metals further diminish terrestrial NPP by altering soil pH and enzyme activity, though empirical quantification remains regionally variable. Fertilization effects from elevated CO2 and nitrogen deposition provide countervailing boosts to productivity, albeit with limitations. Atmospheric CO2 rise from 296 to 389 ppm between 1900 and 2010 enhanced global photosynthesis by an estimated 30%, accounting for 70% of observed vegetation greening, particularly in drylands where water-use efficiency improves. However, this CO2 fertilization effect (CFE) has declined recently, constrained by nutrient limitations like nitrogen availability, which curtails sustained gains in forests and croplands. Nitrogen deposition, acting as an inadvertent fertilizer, yields only minor enhancements to the terrestrial CO2 sink, with ecosystems often reaching saturation thresholds where further inputs fail to increase NPP and instead provoke soil acidification and microbial declines. In nitrogen-limited grasslands and forests, deposition initially elevates productivity but shows no consistent mitigation of drought sensitivity, underscoring diminishing returns and potential biodiversity costs.

Human Appropriation of Productivity and Net Impacts

Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) quantifies the fraction of terrestrial net primary production (NPP)—the biomass fixed by plants minus respiration—captured or altered by human activities, including land-use change, harvest, and biomass consumption. This metric integrates the effects of agriculture, forestry, and infrastructure on ecosystem energy flows, distinguishing between potential NPP (NPPpot) in undisturbed ecosystems and actual NPP (NPPact) after human modification, with HANPP calculated as (NPPpot - NPPact) + harvested biomass (HANPPharv). Global HANPP stood at approximately 13% of potential NPP in 1910, rising to 25% by 2005, equivalent to 14.8 petagrams of carbon per year, driven primarily by expanding cropland and rather than intensified harvest efficiency. Methodologically, HANPP relies on dynamic global vegetation models like LPJ to estimate NPPpot, combined with satellite-derived NPP data, agricultural statistics from the FAO, and forestry inventories to account for HANPPharv and land-use-induced changes (HANPPluc). These approaches reveal spatial heterogeneity: HANPP exceeds 50% in densely populated regions like and , where dominates, but remains below 10% in remote boreal or arid zones. Recent analyses confirm the 25% global figure persists into the , with trade amplifying effective appropriation—up to 30% of HANPP crosses borders via commodities—though methodological assumptions, such as uniform NPPpot baselines ignoring historical human influences, may overestimate pre-industrial potentials in some biomes. Net ecological impacts of HANPP include diminished biomass availability for non-human consumers, correlating with heterotroph species richness declines; for instance, areas with HANPP above 40% exhibit accelerated losses in invertebrate and vertebrate diversity due to habitat simplification and trophic disruptions. While land conversion reduces NPPact by 10-20% on average through soil degradation and fragmentation, human interventions like fertilization can elevate local NPP in managed systems, potentially offsetting global totals via CO2 enhancement effects estimated at 5-15% since 1900. This duality yields mixed outcomes: high HANPP efficiency (biomass yield per land area) has spared wilderness by concentrating production, as evidenced by declining HANPP shares relative to population growth (fourfold since 1910), yet persistent expansion risks tipping ecosystem services like carbon sequestration and pollination, with models projecting further 10-20% increases under business-as-usual scenarios by 2050. Empirical validations from field studies underscore that HANPP thresholds around 20-30% often precede measurable regime shifts in primary productivity resilience.

References

  1. https://lpvs.gsfc.nasa.gov/GPP-NPP/GPPNPP_home.html
  2. https://www.montana.edu/hansenlab/documents/bio494/slides/Lec3.pdf
  3. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/globalchange/lectures/flow-of-energy/
  4. https://oertx.highered.texas.gov/courseware/lesson/1856/overview
  5. https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/research_methods/biogeochemical/productivity.html
  6. https://myweb.ecu.edu/LUCZKOVICHJ/ch08/ch08.htm
  7. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/ecology/intro-to-ecosystems/a/energy-flow-primary-productivity
  8. https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/productivity-biomass/
  9. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/lindemans-trophic-dynamic-aspect-ecology-published
  10. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA15239091&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00368075&p=AONE&sw=w
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6686783/
  12. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/secondary-production-13234142/
  13. https://bio.libretexts.org/Courses/Evergreen_Valley_College/Introduction_to_Ecology_%28Kappus%29/10%253A_Ecosystems/10.02%253A_Energy_Flow_through_Ecosystems
  14. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/ocean-fact/photochemo/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5264509/
  16. https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Oceanography/Oceanography_%28Hill%29/11%253A_Food_Webs_and_Ocean_Productivity/11.1%253A_Primary_Productivity
  17. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804351115
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982220310757
  19. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/terrestrial-primary-production-fuel-for-life-17567411/
  20. https://bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu/ecosystems-1/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8795964/
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272771415300810
  23. https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/pubs/pdf/pub2369.pdf
  24. https://ocean.si.edu/ecosystems/deep-sea/microbes-keep-hydrothermal-vents-pumping
  25. https://deepoceaneducation.org/resources/chemosynthesis/
  26. https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/9/17037/2012/bgd-9-17037-2012.pdf
  27. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/1-4020-4494-1_295
  28. https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio310/W302Tfiles/07_201effic_trophicnotes.pdf
  29. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-abstract/8/1/53/239598
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/096706379390084G
  31. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01257.x
  32. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/secondary-production-quantitative-food-webs-and-trophic-17653963/
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233685068_Community_Secondary_Production_as_a_Measure_of_Ecosystem_Function_A_Case_Study_with_Aquatic_Ecosystem_Fragmentation
  34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1930126
  35. https://origins.swau.edu/temp/classes/doc2.pdf
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2614255/
  37. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ecy.2347
  38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-022-00776-3
  39. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/283518
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33647927/
  41. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761%282001%29011%255B0356:MNPPIF%255D2.0.CO%253B2
  42. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_kloeppel002.pdf
  43. https://cid-inc.com/blog/what-is-plant-productivity-and-how-to-measure-it/
  44. https://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/cmoreserver/summercourse/2011/documents/cullen_06-29-11/Cullen_Primary_Production_Methods.pdf
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8236984/
  46. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1093095/full
  47. https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/114/m114p165.pdf
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352249620300343
  49. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eff.12708
  50. https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/9/2565/2012/bg-9-2565-2012.pdf
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223000119
  52. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/4829/2023/
  53. https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/ehs.0278
  54. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60906-y
  55. http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/ocean.productivity/
  56. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.231186
  57. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/General_Biology_%28Boundless%29/44%253A_Ecology_and_the_Biosphere/44.02%253A_Biogeography/44.2E%253A_Abiotic_Factors_Influencing_Plant_Growth
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7391343/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874050/
  60. https://academic.oup.com/ismej/article/12/7/1836/7475458
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41003-9
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6420600/
  63. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024JG008597
  64. https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lno.11849
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227737481_Effects_of_resource_competition_and_herbivory_on_plant_performance_along_a_natural_productivity_gradient
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3387045/
  67. https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/54/1/81/6757925
  68. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/284531
  69. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2656.12522
  70. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/283817
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1146609X10001505
  72. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15688-w
  73. https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/oik.08605
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X25002511
  75. https://ieb-chile.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/wright2017.pdf
  76. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/51/3/235/256224
  77. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703928114
  78. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.257
  79. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/0012-9658%25282001%2529082%255B2381%253AWITORB%255D2.0.CO%253B2
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6908676/
  81. https://jornada.nmsu.edu/files/bibliography/JRN00418.pdf
  82. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.14098
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224901487_The_Relationship_Between_Productivity_and_Species_Richness
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831924000477
  85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3547771
  86. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13678-1
  87. https://sciences.ucf.edu/biology/d4lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2020/08/Picasso-2018.pdf
  88. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37194-5
  89. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.14400
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1439179121000657
  91. https://academic.oup.com/aobpla/article/doi/10.1093/aobpla/plu057/159343
  92. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.70131
  93. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23120-0
  94. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.14738
  95. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/7/1755
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112721008276
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479717312288
  98. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10106049.2025.2451162
  99. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2318475121
  100. https://wad.jrc.ec.europa.eu/humanappropriation
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666719325002584
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818124003291
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1911196/
  104. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-121912-094620
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3690849/
  106. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8606
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332224000939
  108. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13671
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221204162030173X
  110. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00038/full
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.