Icraf seminar(de clerck)
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes547 views
1) The document discusses how functional diversity decreases with increased land use intensity and agricultural intensification across taxonomic groups. Forest fragments and areas with live fences had greater extinction of species compared to pasture lands. 2) It examines how functional redundancy within taxonomic groups is lost due to land use change. As intensity increases, the number of species performing key functions decreases. 3) The study of agrobiodiversity and human nutrition is presented as a way to consider both sustainable development and theoretical ecology. Research in a region of Kenya found higher on-farm species richness and functional diversity were correlated with improved provision of nutrients important for human health.
![Landuse Intensity
2°Forest Pasture
Forest Low tree density
Live Fence
Pasture
High Tree Density
[ ]
Sanchez et al](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/icrafseminardeclerck-120613033036-phpapp01/85/Icraf-seminar-de-clerck-8-320.jpg)
Icraf seminar(de clerck)
- 1. FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY: Trait-based Approaches for Bioengineering Multifunctional Agroecosystems Fabrice DeClerck (and friends)
- 2. OS PhylogenyXP Upgrade: OS® Now includes Provisioning, Cultural, Regulating and PhylogenyXP Support Services experience the best of the biosphere Constantly Evolving! Version 2.8 B Free support from more than 2 million species* Version 2.8 B *number of species may be greater than 100 million
- 3. 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
- 4. 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
- 5. Tilman et al 1996
- 6. Diaz and Cabido (2001)
- 7. Does land use intensification reduce functional diversity? Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
- 8. Landuse Intensity 2°Forest Pasture Forest Low tree density Live Fence Pasture High Tree Density [ ] Sanchez et al
- 9. How is functional diversity lost with intensification? 71 Species Total Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
- 10. x x What is functional x x redundancy within x x taxonomic groups with land x use change? x x x x x x x x x x x x x Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 Forest Fragment: 25 extinct DeClerck NCEAS DGS
- 11. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Forest Fragment: 25 extinct Live Fence: 41 extinct
- 12. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Forest Fragment: 25 extinct Live Fence: 41 extinct
- 13. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Forest Fragment: 25 extinct Live Fence: 41 extinct Pasture: 64 extinct
- 14. Functional Diversity Decreases with landuse Intensity Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33 DeClerck NCEAS DGS
- 15. 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
- 16. Econutrition: the interrelationships among nutrition, human health, agriculture and food production, environmental health, and economic production Deckelbaum, Palm, Mutuo and F. DeClerck
- 17. 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
- 18. 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
- 19. Seven Traits 1) Protein 2) Energy 3) Vitamin A 4) Vitamin C 5) Iron 6) Zinc 7) Folates F. DeClerck
- 20. High Protein High Energy High Vitamin A F. DeClerck
- 21. Field species richness, and functional diversity are related: r2 0.49, p<0.001 FD Species Richness F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
- 22. Farm 201201 Species Richness = 18 FD = 0.99 FD Farm 103801 Species Richness = 19 FD = 0.66 Species Richness Farm 600102 Species Richness = 10 FD = 0.76 F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
- 23. F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010) Farm 103801 Farm 201201 Farm 600102 Species Richness = 19 Species Richness = 18 Species Richness = 10 FD = 0.66 FD = 0.99 FD = 0.76
- 24. High functional agrobiodiversity decreases probability of anemia F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010) Species richness and anemia, R2 =0.05 Functional diversity and anemia R2= 0.13
- 25. 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)
- 26. Zinc F. DeClerck F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
- 27. Zinc F. DeClerck F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
- 28. Zinc F. DeClerck F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
- 29. Zinc F. DeClerck F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
- 30. F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010) 0.82 Contribution of BD to Nutrition 0.8 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0 10 20 30 40 Number of Nutritional Functions
- 31. 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)
- 32. 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)
- 33. 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.
- 34. 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
- 35. Ecological redundancy • Redundancy = number of species within a functional group • High redundancy = high resilience to environmental change • Why? compensatory responses Group 6: higher 4 redundancy 1 5 & resilience 3 2 6 Functional Group 6: lower groups 1 to 6 redundancy & resilience
- 36. Measuring response diversity • Volume of the minimum Convex hull volume Response trait 2 convex hull formed by species 2.0 within a functional group, in response trait space 1.5 • From 2 to n response traits 1.0 • Represents the range of 0.5 “response strategies” found within a functional group 0.0 • Larger volume = higher 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 resilience Response trait 1
- 37. Measuring response diversity Convex hull volume Response trait 2 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Response trait 1 Response trait 1
- 38. Functional trait Effect Response Specific leaf area (SLA) X Wood density X Growth form X Height X Leaf phenology X X Nutrient uptake strategy X X Photosynthetic pathway X X Raunkiaer life form X Clonality X Dispersal mode X Leaf size X Maximum propagule longevity X Physical defense X Pollination syndrome X Resprouting ability X Seed mass X Lifespan X
- 39. Study Sites, Species Richness (landscapes) Quebec Portugual 243 (1) 110 (1) China USA, NC 453 (2) 38(1) Laos 53(1) Nicaragua Australian RF 240(2) 1028 (4) Costa Rica 728(3) Australian WL New Zealand 52(1) 54(1) ± 3000 species; 17 landscapes; 17 functional traits
- 40. a) Species in effect trait space
- 41. a) Species in effect trait space 4 1 5 3 2 6 b) Functional effect groups
- 42. c) Species in each land use a) Species in effect trait space 4 Natural Semi-natural 1 5 Low-intensity 3 agricultural 2 6 b) Functional effect groups High-intensity agricultural
- 43. c) Species in each land use a) Species in effect trait space d) Functional dispersion (response diversity) for each effect group in each Natural land use e) Spearmanρbetween land Semi-natural use intensity and response diversity ρ = -0.9 Response diversity 4 1 5 Low-intensity 3 agricultural 2 6 Land use intensity b) Functional effect groups High-intensity agricultural Effect size for meta-analysis
- 44. Redundancy decreases with land use intensification Nicaragua (Matiguas) Australia sub-tropics 1 Nicaragua (Rivas) Australia WT (Atherton) China (Hainan lowland) USA (North Carolina) New Zealand Australia sub-tropics 2 Costa Rica (La Palma) China (Hainan montane) Australia WL (NSW) Portugal Costa Rica (Las Cruces) Laos Quebec Australia WT (Tully) Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez) Summary r = -0.22 p = 0.0003 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Correlation coefficient r
- 45. Response diversity decreases as well, but less so Nicaragua (Matiguas) Australia sub-tropics 1 Nicaragua (Rivas) Australia WT (Atherton) China (Hainan lowland) USA (North Carolina) New Zealand Australia sub-tropics 2 Costa Rica (La Palma) China (Hainan montane) Australia WL (NSW) Portugal Costa Rica (Las Cruces) Laos Quebec Australia WT (Tully) Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez) Summary r = -0.091 p = 0.048 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 Correlation coefficientr
- 46. Redundancy Response diversity Nicaragua (Matiguas) Nicaragua (Matiguas) Australia sub-tropics 1 Australia sub-tropics 1 Nicaragua (Rivas) Nicaragua (Rivas) Australia WT (Atherton) Australia WT (Atherton) China (Hainan lowland) China (Hainan lowland) USA (North Carolina) USA (North Carolina) New Zealand New Zealand Australia sub-tropics 2 Australia sub-tropics 2 Costa Rica (La Palma) Costa Rica (La Palma) China (Hainan montane) China (Hainan montane) Australia WL (NSW) Australia WL (NSW) Portugal Portugal Costa Rica (Las Cruces) Costa Rica (Las Cruces) Laos Laos Quebec Quebec Australia WT (Tully) Australia WT (Tully) Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez) Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez) Summary Summary -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 Correlation coefficientr Correlation coefficientr
- 47. 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?
- 48. Thanks! THANKS!!!
Editor's Notes
- #3: Biodivrersity as the global operating system: An operating system (OS) is software, consisting of programs and data, that runs on computers and manages the computer hardware and provides common services for efficient execution of various application software.
- #4: the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes