Description: Concern about the functional consequences of unprecedented loss in biodiversity has prompted biodiversity–ecosystem functioning (BEF) research to become one of the most active fields of ecological research in the past 25 years. Hundreds of experiments have manipulated biodiversity as an independent variable and found compelling support that the functioning of ecosystems increases with the diversity of their ecological communities. This research has also identified some of the mechanisms underlying BEF relationships, some context-dependencies of the strength of relationships, as well as implications for various ecosystem services that humankind depends upon. In this chapter, we argue that a multitrophic perspective of biotic interactions in random and non-random biodiversity change scenarios is key to advance future BEF research and to address some of its most important remaining challenges. We discuss that the study and the quantification of multitrophic interactions in space and time facilitates scaling up from small-scale biodiversity manipulations and ecosystem function assessments to management-relevant spatial scales across ecosystem boundaries. We specifically consider multitrophic conceptual frameworks to understand and predict the context-dependency of BEF relationships. Moreover, we highlight the importance of the eco-evolutionary underpinnings of multitrophic BEF relationships. We outline that FAIR data (meeting the standards of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) and reproducible processing will be key to advance this field of research by making it more integrative. Finally, we show how these BEF insights may be implemented for ecosystem management, society, and policy. Given that human well-being critically depends on the multiple services provided by diverse, multitrophic communities, integrating the approaches of evolutionary ecology, community ecology, and ecosystem ecology in future BEF research will be key to refine conservation targets and develop sustainable management strategies.

Description: © The Author(s), 2018]. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Global Ecology and Biogeography 27 (2018): 760-786, doi:10.1111/geb.12729.

Description: The BioTIME database contains raw data on species identities and abundances in ecological assemblages through time. These data enable users to calculate temporal trends in biodiversity within and amongst assemblages using a broad range of metrics. BioTIME is being developed as a community‐led open‐source database of biodiversity time series. Our goal is to accelerate and facilitate quantitative analysis of temporal patterns of biodiversity in the Anthropocene. The database contains 8,777,413 species abundance records, from assemblages consistently sampled for a minimum of 2 years, which need not necessarily be consecutive. In addition, the database contains metadata relating to sampling methodology and contextual information about each record. BioTIME is a global database of 547,161 unique sampling locations spanning the marine, freshwater and terrestrial realms. Grain size varies across datasets from 0.0000000158 km2 (158 cm2) to 100 km2 (1,000,000,000,000 cm2). BioTIME records span from 1874 to 2016. The minimal temporal grain across all datasets in BioTIME is a year. BioTIME includes data from 44,440 species across the plant and animal kingdoms, ranging from plants, plankton and terrestrial invertebrates to small and large vertebrates.

Description: European Research Council and EU, Grant/Award Number: AdG‐250189, PoC‐727440 and ERC‐SyG‐2013‐610028; Natural Environmental Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/L002531/1; National Science Foundation, Grant/Award Number: DEB‐1237733, DEB‐1456729, 9714103, 0632263, 0856516, 1432277, DEB‐9705814, BSR‐8811902, DEB 9411973, DEB 0080538, DEB 0218039, DEB 0620910, DEB 0963447, DEB‐1546686, DEB‐129764, OCE 95‐21184, OCE‐ 0099226, OCE 03‐52343, OCE‐0623874, OCE‐1031061, OCE‐1336206 and DEB‐1354563; National Science Foundation (LTER) , Grant/Award Number: DEB‐1235828, DEB‐1440297, DBI‐0620409, DEB‐9910514, DEB‐1237517, OCE‐0417412, OCE‐1026851, OCE‐1236905, OCE‐1637396, DEB 1440409, DEB‐0832652, DEB‐0936498, DEB‐0620652, DEB‐1234162 and DEB‐0823293; Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Grant/Award Number: POPH/FSE SFRH/BD/90469/2012, SFRH/BD/84030/2012, PTDC/BIA‐BIC/111184/2009; SFRH/BD/80488/2011 and PD/BD/52597/2014; Ciência sem Fronteiras/CAPES, Grant/Award Number: 1091/13‐1; Instituto Milenio de Oceanografía, Grant/Award Number: IC120019; ARC Centre of Excellence, Grant/Award Number: CE0561432; NSERC Canada; CONICYT/FONDECYT, Grant/Award Number: 1160026, ICM PO5‐002, CONICYT/FONDECYT, 11110351, 1151094, 1070808 and 1130511; RSF, Grant/Award Number: 14‐50‐00029; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Grant/Award Number: GBMF4563; Catalan Government; Marie Curie Individual Fellowship, Grant/Award Number: QLK5‐CT2002‐51518 and MERG‐CT‐2004‐022065; CNPq, Grant/Award Number: 306170/2015‐9, 475434/2010‐2, 403809/2012‐6 and 561897/2010; FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation), Grant/Award Number: 2015/10714‐6, 2015/06743‐0, 2008/10049‐9, 2013/50714‐0 and 1999/09635‐0 e 2013/50718‐5; EU CLIMOOR, Grant/Award Number: ENV4‐CT97‐0694; VULCAN, Grant/Award Number: EVK2‐CT‐2000‐00094; Spanish, Grant/Award Number: REN2000‐0278/CCI, REN2001‐003/GLO and CGL2016‐79835‐P; Catalan, Grant/Award Number: AGAUR SGR‐2014‐453 and SGR‐2017‐1005; DFG, Grant/Award Number: 120/10‐2; Polar Continental Shelf Program; CENPES – PETROBRAS; FAPERJ, Grant/Award Number: E‐26/110.114/2013; German Academic Exchange Service; sDiv; iDiv; New Zealand Department of Conservation; Wellcome Trust, Grant/Award Number: 105621/Z/14/Z; Smithsonian Atherton Seidell Fund; Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority; Research Council of Norway; Conselleria de Innovació, Hisenda i Economia; Yukon Government Herschel Island‐Qikiqtaruk Territorial Park; UK Natural Environment Research Council ShrubTundra Grant, Grant/Award Number: NE/M016323/1; IPY; Memorial University; ArcticNet. DOI: 10.13039/50110000027. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research in the Tropics NWO, grant W84‐194. Ciências sem Fronteiras and Coordenação de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Brazil), Grant/Award Number: 1091/13‐1. National Science foundation (LTER), Award Number: OCE‐9982105, OCE‐0620276, OCE‐1232779. FCT ‐ SFRH / BPD / 82259 / 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/State Wildlife federal grant number T‐15. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CE140100020). Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT110100609. M.B., A.J., K.P., J.S. received financial support from internal funds of University of Lódź. NSF DEB 1353139. Catalan Government fellowships (DURSI): 1998FI‐00596, 2001BEAI200208, MECD Post‐doctoral fellowship EX2002‐0022. National Science Foundation Award OPP‐1440435. FONDECYT 1141037 and FONDAP 15150003 (IDEAL). CNPq Grant 306595‐2014‐1

Description: Understanding what controls global leaf type variation in trees is crucial for \ncomprehending their role in terrestrial ecosystems, including carbon, water \nand nutrient dynamics. Yet our understanding of the factors infuencing \nforest leaf types remains incomplete, leaving us uncertain about the global \nproportions of needle-leaved, broadleaved, evergreen and deciduous \ntrees. To address these gaps, we conducted a global, ground-sourced \nassessment of forest leaf-type variation by integrating forest inventory \ndata with comprehensive leaf form (broadleaf vs needle-leaf) and habit \n(evergreen vs deciduous) records. We found that global variation in leaf \nhabit is primarily driven by isothermality and soil characteristics, while leaf \nform is predominantly driven by temperature. Given these relationships, \nwe estimate that 38% of global tree individuals are needle-leaved evergreen, \n29% are broadleaved evergreen, 27% are broadleaved deciduous and \n5% are needle-leaved deciduous. The aboveground biomass distribution \namong these tree types is approximately 21% (126.4\xe2\x80\x89Gt), 54% (335.7\xe2\x80\x89Gt), 22% \n(136.2\xe2\x80\x89Gt) and 3% (18.7\xe2\x80\x89Gt), respectively. We further project that, depending \non future emissions pathways, 17\xe2\x80\x9334% of forested areas will experience \nclimate conditions by the end of the century that currently support a \ndiferent forest type, highlighting the intensifcation of climatic stress on \nexisting forests. By quantifying the distribution of tree leaf types and their \ncorresponding biomass, and identifying regions where climate change will \nexert greatest pressure on current leaf types, our results can help improve \npredictions of future terrestrial ecosystem functioning and carbon cycling.

Description: Forests are a substantial terrestrial carbon sink, but anthropogenic changes in land \nuse and climate have considerably reduced the scale of this system1 \n. Remote-sensing \nestimates to quantify carbon losses from global forests2\xe2\x80\x935 \n are characterized by \nconsiderable uncertainty and we lack a comprehensive ground-sourced evaluation to \nbenchmark these estimates. Here we combine several ground-sourced6 \n and satellitederived approaches2,7,8 \n to evaluate the scale of the global forest carbon potential \noutside agricultural and urban lands. Despite regional variation, the predictions \ndemonstrated remarkable consistency at a global scale, with only a 12% diference \nbetween the ground-sourced and satellite-derived estimates. At present, global forest \ncarbon storage is markedly under the natural potential, with a total defcit of 226\xe2\x80\x89Gt \n(model range\xe2\x80\x89=\xe2\x80\x89151\xe2\x80\x93363\xe2\x80\x89Gt) in areas with low human footprint. Most (61%, 139\xe2\x80\x89Gt\xe2\x80\x89C) \nof this potential is in areas with existing forests, in which ecosystem protection can \nallow forests to recover to maturity. The remaining 39% (87\xe2\x80\x89Gt\xe2\x80\x89C) of potential lies in \nregions in which forests have been removed or fragmented. Although forests cannot \nbe a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea2,3,9 \n that the \nconservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests ofer \nvaluable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets.