Text S1: Trait data
We included traits which are commonly measured and shown to be key traits in affecting
the organisms’ response to environmental change and/or to have functional significance: for
carabid beetles [1 - 5], pollinators [6 - 8], earthworms [9 - 13], nematodes [14] and dung beetles
[15 - 18]. Ecosystem functions are determined not only by the specimens per capita efficiency,
but also by the specimens numerical abundance. Hence, we argue that in observational studies
traits that affect community response to environmental change (response traits) and traits that
affect ecosystem processes (effect traits) are both important for predicting ecosystem
functioning, because species composition (with regard to species richness and abundances in a
community) can be expected to be affected by species response traits while the efficiency of
resource exploitation will be determined by species effect traits as well [19]. An example would
be a community in which the dominant predator, though not possessing optimal traits for prey
exploitation, nevertheless may reach high abundances – and exert high pressure on the prey
community - due to being resilient to disturbance. Moreover, only few animal traits have been
experimentally tested for their effect on ecosystem functioning and it is often hard to distinguish
between response and effect traits because some traits may be both or response and effect traits
can be strongly correlated [20 - 22].
Trait data for carabids included: body size (continuous), time of reproduction (spring,
summer or inconclusive), activity period (diurnal, nocturnal or inconclusive), wing morphology
(macropterous, brachipterous or dimorphic), overwintering strategy (adult, imago or
inconclusive), trophic level (mainly herbivore, mainly predator or omnivore), humidity
preference (dry, medium-dry, medium, medium-wet, wet or all), light preference (non-shaded,
partly shaded, shaded) and habitat preferences (open, wooded or inconclusive). Trait data for
pollinators included: nest place and construction (carder, cleptoparasite, excavator:ground,
renter:existing cavities, renter:snail shells, social parasite), mean intertegular distance (ITD) of
females (continuous), habitat specialism (number of main habitat use), diet specialization
(oligolectic, polilectic), buzz pollinator (yes, no), tongue length (long, short), sociality (eusocial,
solitary), voltinism (univoltine, univoltine or bivoltine, bivoltine, univoltine to multivoltine,
multivoltine), total months active (continuous), emergence time (6 levels: Jan to Jun). Trait data
for earthworms included: ecological group (edogeic, epigeic,anecic), weight of adults and
juveniles (continuous), width of adults (continuous), number of segments (continuous),
reproductive staregy (obligatory biparental, parthenogenetic), hatchling peaks (April to May,
May to June), number of cocoons per worm (continuous), days to hatching (continuous), months
to sexual maturity (continuous), dry weight of gut content (continuous), gut passage time of food
in h (continuous), length of adults and juveniles (continuous), ph (continuous). Traits for
nematodes included: length of adults and juveniles (continuous), width of adults and juveniles
(continuous), mass of adults and juveniles (continuous), type of feeding interaction
(bacterivorous, fungivorous, fungivorous & herbivorous, herbivorous, omnivorous, omnivorous),
trophic level (2 levels: first and second). Traits for dung beetles included activity period (diurnal,
nocturnal), nesting strategy (roller, tunneller), length (continuous), mass (continuous) and body
size (large, small).
References
1. Ribera I, Dolédec S, Downie IS, Foster GN. 2001 Effect of Land Disturbance and Stress on
Species Traits of Ground Beetle Assemblages. Ecology 82: 1112–1129.
2. Driscoll DA, Weir T. 2005 Beetle Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Depend on Ecological
Traits, Habitat Condition, and Remnant Size. Conserv. Biol. 19: 182–194.
3. Vanbergen AJ, Woodcock BA, Watt AD, Niemelä J. 2005 Effect of land-use heterogeneity on
carabid communities at the landscape scale. Ecography 28: 3–16.
4. Lambeets K, Vandegehuchte ML, Maelfait J, Bonte D. 2008 Understanding the impact of
flooding on trait-displacements and shifts in assemblage structure of predatory arthropods on
river banks. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 1162-1174.
5. Gerisch M, Agostinelli V, Henle K, Dziock F. 2012 More species, but all do the same:
contrasting effects of flood disturbance on ground beetle functional and species diversity. Oikos
121: 508–515.
6. Moretti M, de Bello F, Roberts SPM, Potts SG. 2009 Taxonomical vs. functional responses of
bee communities to fire in two contrasting climatic regions. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 98–108.
7. Bommarco R, Biesmeijer JC, Meyer B, Potts SG, Pöyry J, et al. 2010 Dispersal capacity and
diet breadth modify the response of wild bees to habitat loss. Proc. Biol. Sci. 277: 2075–82.
8. Williams NM, Crone EE, Roulston TH, Minckley RL, Packer L, et al. 2010. Ecological and
life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol. Conserv.
143: 2280–2291.
9. Edwards CA, Lofty JR. 1972 Biology of Earthworms. New York: Halsted Press.
10. Lofs-Holmin A. 1983 Reproduction and growth of common arable land and pasture species
of earthworms (Lumbricidae) in laboratory cultures. Swed. J. Agr. Res. 13: 31-37.
11. Sims RW, Gerard BM. 1985 Earthworms - Keys and notes for the identification and study of
the species. In: Kermack DM, Barnes RSK, editors. Synopses of the British Fauna No 31. The
Linnaen Society of London and the Estuarine and Brackish-Water Sciences Association. Bath,
UK: The Pitman Press. p 171.
12. Edwards CA. 2004 Earthworm Ecology. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
13. Dominguez J, Edwards CA. 2011 Biology and Ecology of Earthworm Species Used for
Vermicomposting. In: Edwards CA, Norman Q, Arancon NQ, Sherman RL, editors,
Vermiculture Technology: Earthworms. Organic Wastes, and Environmental Management. Boca
Raton : Taylor & Francis. pp. 28-38.
14. Mulder C, Vonk JA. 2011 Nematode traits and environmental constraints in 200 soil
systems: scaling within the 60–6000 μm body size range. Ecology 92: 2004.
15. Doube BM. 1990 A functional classification for analysis of the structure of dung beetle
assemblages. Ecol. Entomol. 15: 371-383.
16. Slade EM, Mann DJ, Villanueva JF, Lewis OT. 2007 Experimental evidence for the effects
of dung beetle functional group richness and composition on ecosystem function in a tropical
forest. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 1094-1104.
17. Slade EM, Mann DJ, Lewis OT. 2011 Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest
dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes. Biol. Cons. 144: 166-174.
18. Nichols E, Uriarte M, Bunker DE, Favila ME, Slade EM, et al. 2013. Trait-dependent
response of dung beetle populations to tropical forest conversion at local and regional scales.
Ecology 94: 180-189.
19. Lavorel S, Garnier E. 2002 Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem
functioning from plant traits. Func. Ecol. 16: 545–556.
20. Garnier E, Cortez J, Billes G, Navas M-L, Roumet C, et al. 2004. Plant functional markers
capture ecosystem properties. Ecology 85: 2630–2637.
21. De Deyn GB, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD. 2008 Plant functional traits and soil carbon
sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecol. Lett. 11: 516–31.
22. Pakeman RJ. 2011 Multivariate identification of plant functional response and effect traits in
an agricultural landscape. Ecology 92: 1353–65.