Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Miscellaneous Frontmatter
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Connecting Ecosystem and Geoscience Processes
- 2 Toward a General Scaling Theory for Linking Traits, Stoichiometry, and Body Size to Ecosystem Function
- Part II Transport Processes and Conservation Budgets in Biogeoscience
- Part III Coupling Hillslope Geomorphology, Soils, Hydrology, and Ecosystems
- Part IV Coupling Fluvial and Aeolian Geomorphology, Hydrology/Hydraulics, and Ecosystems
- Index
- References
2 - Toward a General Scaling Theory for Linking Traits, Stoichiometry, and Body Size to Ecosystem Function
from Part I - Connecting Ecosystem and Geoscience Processes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2016
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Miscellaneous Frontmatter
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Connecting Ecosystem and Geoscience Processes
- 2 Toward a General Scaling Theory for Linking Traits, Stoichiometry, and Body Size to Ecosystem Function
- Part II Transport Processes and Conservation Budgets in Biogeoscience
- Part III Coupling Hillslope Geomorphology, Soils, Hydrology, and Ecosystems
- Part IV Coupling Fluvial and Aeolian Geomorphology, Hydrology/Hydraulics, and Ecosystems
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
[W]ithout theory, we have only phenomenology and correlation, and we lose the opportunity to yoke the complexity of ecological systems using simple, quantitative principles.
Marquet et al. (2014)Scaling has been heralded as one of the major challenges of ecology for more than two decades (Levin, 1992; Ehleringer and Field, 1993). Here, in the spirit of Marquet et al. (2014), we provide an overview of a general theory for scaling based on simple quantitative principles. We argue that a focus on scaling also presents some of the more powerful scientific tools available to ecologists facing problems that are unprecedented in both their scope and their stakes. Indeed, one of the central challenges of ecosystem science is to scale up from measurements on individual traits, organisms, and locations to predict the carbon and nutrient pools and fluxes of entire ecosystems.
In terrestrial ecosystems, this challenge requires us to integrate the physiological functioning of plants (e.g., leaf-level photosynthesis) across a collection of heterogeneous individuals (e.g., plants of different species) to understand the functioning of the entire ensemble (e.g., primary productivity) (Ehleringer and Field, 1993; Chapin, 2003). In order to better predict the future of plant communities and ecosystem functioning in response to rising CO2 and enhanced nitrogen (N) deposition with changes in climate (temperature and precipitation), this sort of understanding must be extended to connect simultaneous changes in multiple biogeochemical cycles.
Why a General Allometric and Metabolic Theory of Ecosystems Is Needed
Recent re-evaluations of global change models indicate that they could greatly benefit from incorporating allometry and ecosystem scaling. Specifically, global change models used to understand how ecosystems respond to climate change frequently do not produce realistic biomass and allometries, which suggests the need for better models of plant growth, nutrient uptake, and mortality (Wolf et al., 2011). Metabolic scaling provides a bridge between leaf-, plant-, and stand-level measurements and the biogeochemical and thermodynamic processes that drive global change models.
In this chapter, we focus on the powerful control that plant size and functional traits exert on ecosystem pattern and process. We use recent insights from the Metabolic Scaling Theory (MST) to scale up from individual plant metabolism, nutrient stoichiometry, and functional traits to ecosystem-level pools and fluxes.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- A Biogeoscience Approach to Ecosystems , pp. 9 - 46Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
(2004). The C: N: P stoichiometry of autotrophs–theory and observations. Ecology Letters, 7, 185–91.Google Scholar
, , and (2006). Limited predictability of amikacin clearance in extreme premature neonates at birth. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 61, 39–48.Google Scholar
and (2009). Towards an integration of ecological stoichiometry and the metabolic theory of ecology to better understand nutrient cycling. Ecology Letters, 12, 369–84.Google Scholar
, and (2005). Linking the global carbon cycle to individual metabolism. Functional Ecology, 19, 202–13.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2002). Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications, 12, 1418–33.Google Scholar
and (2012). Ecosystems. In R. M. Sibly, J. H. Brown and A. Kodric-Brown, A. (eds.), Metabolic Ecology: A Scaling Approach, pp. 99–111.
and (2003). Thermal acclimation and the dynamic response of plant respiration to temperature. Trends in Plant Science, 8, 343–51.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2013). An empirical assessment of tree branching networks and implications for plant allometric scaling models. Ecology Letters, 16, 1069–78.Google Scholar
(1984). Size, Function, and Life History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(2003). Effects of plant traits on ecosystem and regional processes: a conceptual framework for predicting the consequences of global change. Annals of Botany, 91, 455–63.Google Scholar
(1990). Integration of ecological levels: individual plant-growth; population mortality and ecosystem processes. Journal of Ecology, 78, 275–99.Google Scholar
(1992). Density-independent mortality, density compensation, gap formation, and self-thinning in plant populations. Theoretical Population Biology, 42, 172–98.Google Scholar
(2006). Challenges to the generality of WBE theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 593–6.Google Scholar
, , and (2003). Disturbances prevent stem size-density distributions in natural forests from following scaling relationships. Ecology Letters, 6, 980–9.Google Scholar
, , et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–60.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006). Plant mass–density relationship along a moisture gradient in north-west China. Journal of Ecology, 94, 953–8.Google Scholar
, and (2005). Assessing the general patterns of forest structure: Quantifying tree and forest allometrc scaling relationships in the United States. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24(12), 1465–1475.Google Scholar
, and (2005). Allometric growth, life-history invariants and population energetics. Ecology Letters, 8, 353–60.Google Scholar
and (1993). Scaling Physiological Processes, Leaf to Globe. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
, , , and (2010). Biological stoichiometry of plant production: metabolism, scaling and ecological response to global change. New Phytologist, 186, 593–608.Google Scholar
(2002). Universal scaling in tree and vascular plant allometry: toward a general quantitative theory linking plant form and function from cells to ecosystems. Tree Physiology, 22, 1045–64.Google Scholar
and (2012). Land plants: new theoretical directions and empirical prospects. In R. M. Sibly, J. H. Brown and A. Kodric-Brown, A. (eds.), Metabolic Ecology: A Scaling Approach, 164–87.
and (2001). Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature, 410, 655–60.Google Scholar
and (2002). Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning in seed plants. Science, 295, 1517–20.Google Scholar
, and (1998). Allometric scaling of plant energetics and population density. Nature, 395, 163–5.Google Scholar
, and (2009). Extensions and evaluations of a general quantitative theory of forest structure and dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 7046–51.Google Scholar
, , and (2007) Adaptive differences in plant physiology and ecosystem paradoxes: insights from Metabolic Scaling Theory. Global Change Biology, 13, 591–609.Google Scholar
, , and (1999). Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature, 401, 907–11.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2007b). Biological scaling: does the exception prove the rule?
Nature, 445, E9–E10.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2003). Scaling metabolism from organisms to ecosystems. Nature, 423, 639–42.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2007a). A general integrative model for scaling plant growth, carbon flux, and functional trait spectra. Nature, 449, 218–22.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2015). Scaling from traits to ecosystems: Developing a general trait driver theory via integrating trait-based and metabolic scaling theories. Advances in Ecological Research, 52, 249–318.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 557–81.Google Scholar
(2003). Plant respiration in productivity models: conceptualisation, representation and issues for global terrestrial carbon-cycle research. Functional Plant Biology, 30, 171–86.Google Scholar
, , , and (2001). Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science, 293, 2248–51.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2005). The metabolic basis of whole-organism RNA and phosphorus content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 11923–7.Google Scholar
, , , and (2002). Effects of size and temperature on development time. Nature, 417, 70–3.Google Scholar
(2002). Towards a synthesis of the Newtonian and Darwinian world views. Physics Today, 55, 29–37.Google Scholar
and (1990) Structure, dynamics, and equilibrium status of old-growth forest on Barro Colorado Island. In (ed.), Four Neotropical Rainforests. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 522–41.
(1978). Plant Growth Analysis. London: Edward Arnold Limited.
and (2009) Convergent structural responses of tropical forests to diverse disturbance regimes. Ecology Letters, 12, 887–97.Google Scholar
and (2006). Ecosystem allometry: the scaling of nutrient stocks and primary productivity across plant communities. Ecology Letters, 9, 419–27.Google Scholar
and (2007). Implications of scaling approaches for understanding resilience and reorganization in ecosystems. Bioscience, 57, 489–99.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). Plant allometry, stoichiometry and the temperature-dependence of primary productivity. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 14, 585–98.Google Scholar
(1999). Light gradient partitioning among tropical tree species through differential seedling mortality and growth. Ecology, 80, 187–201.Google Scholar
and (2009.) Is whole-plant photosynthetic rate proportional to leaf area? A test of scalings and a logistic equation by leaf demography census. American Naturalist, 173, 640–9.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2013). A general combined model to describe tree diameter distributions within subtropical and temperate forest communities. Oikos, 122, 1636–42.Google Scholar
, , , and (1989). Analyses of growth based on net assimilation rate and nitrogen productivity: their physiological background. In Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity of Higher Plants, ed. , , and . The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing, pp. 1–17.
, , , , and (1992). Dynamics of accumulation and partitioning of N in leaves, stems and roots of Lucerne (Medicago-Sativa L) in a dense canopy. Annals of Botany, 70, 429–35.Google Scholar
, , and (1990) Forest dynamics at La Selva Biological Station, 1969–1985. In: (ed.), Four Neotropical Rainforests. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 509–21.
, and (2007). Allometric scaling of plant life history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15777–80.Google Scholar
, , , and (1998). Aboveground biomass and nitrogen allocation of ten deciduous southern Appalachian tree species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28, 1648–59.Google Scholar
and (2009). N : P stoichiometry and protein : RNA ratios in vascular plants: an evaluation of the growth-rate hypothesis. Ecology Letters, 12, 765–71.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (2015). Plant thermoregulation: energetics, Trait-environment interactions, and carbon economics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30, 714–24. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.09.006.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2008). Revisiting a model of ontogenetic growth: estimating model parameters from theory and data. The American Naturalist, 171, 632–45.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006a). Comparing tropical forest tree size distributions with the predictions of metabolic ecology and equilibrium models. Ecology Letters, 9, 589–602.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006b). Testing metabolic ecology theory for allometric scaling of tree size, growth, and mortality in tropical forests. Ecology Letters, 9, 575–88.Google Scholar
(1927). A relationship between circumference and weight in trees and its bearing on branching angles. The Journal of General Physiology, 10, 725–39.Google Scholar
(2006). Plant allometry, leaf nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry, and interspecific trends in annual growth rates. Annals of Botany, 97, 155–63.Google Scholar
and (2001). Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 2922–7.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). Nitrogen/phosphorus leaf stoichiometry and the scaling of plant growth. Ecology Letters, 8, 636–42.Google Scholar
(1927). Growth studies. VI: on the relative sizes of growing plant organs. Annals of Botany, 41, 549–56.Google Scholar
, and (2011). The relationship between relative growth rate and whole-plant C: N: P stoichiometry in plant seedlings grown under nutrient-enriched conditions. Journal of Plant Ecology, 4, 147–56.Google Scholar
(1983). The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(1989). Interspecific variation in relative growth rate: on ecological causes and physiological consequences. In Causes and Consequences of Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity in Higher Plants, ed. , , and . The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing, pp. 45–68.
, and (2007). A general model for allometric covariation in botanical form and function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 13204–9.Google Scholar
, , , and (2010). The metabolic theory of ecology: prospects and challenges for plant biology. New Phytologist, 188, 696–710.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2014). Are leaf functional traits ‘invariant’ with plant size and what is ‘invariance’ anyway?
Functional Ecology, 28, 1330–43.Google Scholar
, , , , , et al. (2005). The forest inventory and analysis sampling frame. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 21–36.
, , and (2006). Universal scaling of respiratory metabolism, size and nitrogen in plants. Nature, 439, 457–61.Google Scholar
, , , and (1998). Close association of RGR, leaf and root morphology, seed mass and shade tolerance in seedlings of nine boreal tree species grown in high and low light. Functional Ecology, 12, 327–38.Google Scholar
(2004). Scaling the depths: below-ground allocation in plants, forests and biomes. Functional Ecology, 18, 290–5.Google Scholar
(2007). Implications of a large global root biomass for carbon sink estimates and for soil carbon dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 2753–9.Google Scholar
, and (2007). Growth-size scaling relationships of woody plant species differ from predictions of the Metabolic Ecology Model. Ecology Letters, 10, 889–901.Google Scholar
, and (2008). Sizing up allometric scaling theory. PLoS Computational Biology, 4, e1000171, doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000171.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2010). Hydraulic tradeoffs and space filling enable better predictions of vascular structure and function in plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107, 22722–7.Google Scholar
(1984). Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important?
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
and (1991). Production–biomass relationships and element cycling in contrasting Arctic vegetation types. Ecological Monographs, 61, 1–31.Google Scholar
, , and (1964). A quantitative analysis of plant form – the pipe model theory: I. Basic analysis. Japanese Journal of Ecology, 14, 97–105.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2014). Resilience in ecology: abstraction, distraction, or where the action is?
Biological Conservation, 177, 43–51.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2014). Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature, 507, 90–3.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (2004). Does metabolic theory apply to community ecology? It's a matter of scale. Ecology, 85, 1797–9.Google Scholar
, , and (2004). Fundamental connections among organism C: N: P stoichiometry, macromolecular composition, and growth. Ecology, 85, 1217–29.Google Scholar
, and (1997). A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science, 276, 122–6.Google Scholar
, and (1999a). The fourth dimension of life: fractal geometry and allometric scaling of organisms. Science, 284, 1677–9.Google Scholar
, and (1999b). A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature, 400, 664–7.Google Scholar
, and (2009). A general quantitative theory of forest structure and dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 106, 7040–5.Google Scholar
, and (2008). On estimating the exponent of power law frequency distributions. Ecology, 89, 905–12.Google Scholar
, , and (2007). Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22, 323–30.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2011). Forest biomass allometry in global land surface models. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 25, GB3015, doi:10.1029/2010GB003917.Google Scholar
, , and (1963). Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. Journal of Biology Osaka City University, 14, 107–29.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2012). Reconciling the temperature dependence of respiration across timescales and ecosystem types. Nature, 487, 472–6.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by