www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1172460/DC1
Supporting Online Material for
Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological
Restoration: A Meta-Analysis
José M. Rey Benayas,* Adrian C. Newton, Anita Diaz, James M. Bullock
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: josem.rey@uah.es
Published 30 July 2009 on Science Express
DOI: 10.1126/science.1172460
This PDF file includes:
Materials and Methods
SOM Text
Figs. S1 and S2
Table S1
References
1
2
Supporting Online Material for
3
Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological
4
Restoration: a Meta-analysis
5
6
José M. Rey Benayas, Adrian C. Newton, Anita Diaz, and James M. Bullock
7
E-mail: josem.rey@uah.es (JMRB), anewton@bournemouth.ac.uk (ACN),
8
adiaz@bournemouth.ac.uk (AD), jmbul@ceh.ac.uk (JMB)
9
10
This PDF file includes:
11
Material and Methods
12
Results
13
Fig. S1, Fig. S2
14
Table S1
15
References
16
17
1 Material and Methods
18
19
Literature search
20
We performed a systematic search of the scientific literature to identify quantitative evidence of
21
the impacts of ecological restoration on provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity. We
22
used the ISI Web of Knowledge (www.isiwebofknowledge.com) database as it provides access to
23
peer-reviewed studies. We performed a search of this database on 6th June 2008 with no
1
1
restriction on publication year, using the following search term combinations: ((ecosystem OR
2
environment*) AND (service* OR function*)) AND (restor* OR re-creat* OR rehabilitat*). The
3
preliminary search was refined to the subject areas “environmental sciences and ecology”,
4
“biodiversity and conservation”, “zoology”, “marine and freshwater biology”, “plant sciences”,
5
“agriculture”, “forestry”, “water resources”, “fisheries”, and “entomology”, using the ‘Refine
6
Results’ option in Web of Knowledge. This resulted in a list of 3370 references. We examined
7
the title and abstract of each of these references to assess their potential for meeting the selection
8
criteria for inclusion in the review.
9
10
The selection criteria required the reporting in the manuscript of quantitative measures of
11
variables relating to provision of one or more ecosystem services of any type, and/or biodiversity,
12
in relation to the assessment of a restoration action. The number of studies that were deemed
13
likely to contain relevant information was 916. Of these, 319 studies were identified that might
14
potentially meet the selection criterion of presenting information on Restored, Reference and
15
Degraded ecosystems. The full manuscript of each of these studies was assessed in detail by one
16
of us (JMRB). Those studies that did not provide information on all three types of ecosystem
17
were eliminated, together with those investigations that did not present relevant data derived from
18
field observations. Most assessments of restoration actions involved field-based comparisons or
19
field experiments of different intervention treatments, but other approaches considered within the
20
scope of this meta-analysis included surveys along gradients or chronosequences (i.e. space-for-
21
time substitution) of disturbance, natural experiments comparing recovery in disturbed and un-
22
disturbed areas, time-series data from different sites, modelling using empirical data, and
23
microcosm experiments. Information was extracted from each study on the human actions that
24
had resulted in the Degraded system and the actions taken in the Restored system. This was used
2
1
to discard studies in which the Degraded, Restored and Reference systems were not considered to
2
be comparable. This process resulted in 89 studies that formed the basis of the meta-analysis
3
(References). Thirteen studies based upon simulations were discarded during this review process
4
because they did not provide direct measures of an ecosystem service or biodiversity. Timescales
5
of the investigations ranged from < 5 years to 300 years (mean duration of restoration actions ±
6
SE = 29.4 + 3.8 years).
7
8
Data extraction
9
We extracted and analysed measures of different variables relating to ecosystem services, i.e.
10
“the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (S1). Similarly, we extracted information on all
11
measures of biodiversity presented by each investigation, whether or not these were explicitly the
12
focus of restoration actions.
13
14
The ecosystem services were classified according to the scheme developed by the Millennium
15
Ecosystem Assessment (S1), which distinguished four categories: supporting, provisioning,
16
regulating and cultural. For our analysis (Table S1), the studies reported data relating to the first
17
three services but none measured cultural services explicitly. Provisioning services are the
18
products used by people that are obtained from ecosystems, including food and fiber, fuel,
19
genetic resources, biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals, ornamental resources,
20
and fresh water. Regulating services are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
21
processes, including air quality maintenance, climate regulation, water regulation, erosion
22
control, water purification and waste treatment, regulation of human diseases, biological control,
23
pollination, and storm protection. Cultural services relate to human values and behavior, as well
24
as to human institutions and patterns of social, economic, religious, and political organization.
3
1
Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of other ecosystem services.
2
They differ from provisioning, regulating, and cultural services in that their impacts on people are
3
either indirect or occur over very long time scales, whereas changes in the other categories have
4
relatively direct and short-term impacts on human well-being. Supporting services include soil
5
formation, photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling and water cycling.
6
7
Only a small minority of studies (12%) explicitly referred to the concept of ecosystem services. A
8
larger number referred to the concept of ecosystem function, but restoration of ecosystem
9
function was explicitly mentioned as an objective of the restoration actions in fewer than half
10
(45%) of the studies considered. The identification and classification of reported variables as
11
measures of ecosystem services were therefore largely made on the basis of the expert judgment
12
of the current authors, by referring to the context and objectives of each individual study, and the
13
classification scheme developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. This classification is
14
reported in Table S1. We extracted data on a variety of measures relating to provision of the
15
ecosystem services described above. The measures represented stocks, flows or rates of service
16
production (Table S1). The value of these measures was derived from the text, figures and/or
17
tables that were presented by the individual studies included in the review.
18
19
We also extracted data on biodiversity, relating to a wide variety of taxonomic groups, including
20
vascular plants, algae, fungi, microbes, phytoplankton, invertebrates, birds, mammals and fish
21
(Table S1). A range of variables was considered as measures of biodiversity including: the
22
presence, density and abundance of organisms (including measures such as the basal area of tree
23
species and plant cover, and measures of growth and survival of individual species); species
24
richness, diversity and evenness (including appropriate indices); community composition (e.g.
4
1
similarity indices); and biomass (e.g. of benthic invertebrates and microbes). The classification of
2
variables relating to biodiversity or ecosystem services was made by the current authors, by
3
referring to the context of each individual study. For example, basal area in forests was deemed
4
to be a measure of i) biodiversity if employed by an investigation as a measure of relative
5
abundance of tree species, ii) a supporting service if it was a employed as measure of biomass or
6
ecosystem structure related to primary production or iii) a provisioning service if it was used as a
7
measure of the available harvestable volume of a timber species.
8
9
We classified the studies into the following biome types: inland water ecosystems (including
10
streams, rivers, wetlands) in 1) tropical (3 studies) or 2) temperate regions (22 studies); coastal
11
ecosystems (including mangroves and estuaries) in 3) tropical (4 studies) or 4) temperate regions
12
(2 studies); marine ecosystems in 5) tropical (1 study) or 6) temperate regions (2 studies); forests
13
in 7) tropical (14 studies) or 8) temperate (18 studies; this included one high temperate
14
mountain/tundra study) regions; savanna, grassland, rangeland (including floodplain meadows)
15
systems in 9) tropical (4 studies) or 10) temperate (16 studies) regions; and 11) farmland (all
16
were temperate) (3 studies) (Table S1). These types of terrestrial biome are based upon the
17
classification of S2. For statistical tests, these categories were grouped into four broad biome
18
categories: tropical aquatic, temperate aquatic, tropical terrestrial and temperate terrestrial
19
ecosystems. To obtain sufficiently large sample sizes for this analysis, the three service categories
20
were also pooled.
21
22
The 89 studies provided 526 measures of biodiversity or ecosystem service (Table S1). Because
23
most studies provided information for more than one ecosystem service type and/or there was
24
quantitative information provided for more than one taxonomic group or for different biodiversity
5
1
measures for the same taxonomic group, the same service type or biodiversity was estimated by
2
means of two or more surrogate variables. Data extraction was performed by one of us (JMRB)
3
for consistency, and then checked by two others (ACN and JMB). Decisions regarding the
4
classification of ecosystem services, assignment to biome, and measures of biodiversity and the
5
sign of environmental variables (see below) were made collectively by all authors.
6
7
Response ratios
8
Our meta-analytical approach was based upon the standard equation for response ratios, namely
9
ln(Rest/X) (S3), where Rest is the value of a measure of an ecosystem service or biodiversity in a
10
Restored ecosystem, and X = Ref or Deg, i.e. the value of the same variable in a Reference or
11
Degraded ecosystem, respectively. We did not weight effect sizes, i.e. use measured sample
12
variance in a calculation of effect sizes so that studies with more replication are counted more
13
heavily. Such weighting might be preferable (although S4 and S5 found little difference between
14
the results of weighted and unweighted meta-analyses), but very few (~30%) of the studies we
15
analysed had multiple restored, reference or degraded sites to provide any measure of variance.
16
This is not surprising because many studies were of large-scale, field-based restorations without
17
replication. Indeed, in considering the value of the measures made, those from actual, large-scale
18
restorations will be more appropriate for answering questions about the success of restoration in
19
the real world than will those from small experimental plots (S4). Our meta-analysis is therefore
20
especially important as it combines a large number of such studies to search for common
21
outcomes.
22
23
Meta-analyses may suffer from publication bias towards publishing positive results. Tests for bias
24
require measures of the size of the study and associated variance. As stated above, we have no
6
1
measures of variance, but we believe publication bias to be low for two reasons. Firstly, there is
2
much interest in determining whether or not restorations are successful. Thus, it is likely that
3
unsuccessful restorations would be reported. Secondly, the ecosystem service measures we used
4
were not reported at such in the papers, but as unbiased measures of ecosystem processes. Our re-
5
interpretation of these measures would dilute any publication bias.
6
7
The response ratios cannot be calculated for zero or negative values, which were not used in the
8
analyses reported in figures 1-3. There were two negative values in the Rest/Ref comparison
9
(Table S1), and the data used had N = 524 data points, with 270 for Biodiversity, 194 for
10
Supporting services, 14 for Provisioning services and 46 for Regulating services. For the
11
Rest/Deg response ratio, 19 zero values were omitted (Table S1), resulting in N = 508 data points,
12
with 254 for Biodiversity, 195 for Supporting services, 13 for Provisioning services and 46 for
13
Regulating services. To check for bias arising from these excluded data, we performed additional
14
analyses including the zero values (see below).
15
16
Most environmental variables reported by the published studies were considered by us to be
17
positively related to the provision of the associated ecosystem service, e.g. a higher amount of
18
any harvested food or of microbial activity was interpreted as associated with increased provision
19
of the associated ecosystem services. However, in some cases, the variables presented were
20
considered to be negatively related to ecosystem service provision. For example, a greater
21
concentration of a contaminant in water or soil or higher values of soil bulk density were
22
interpreted as being negatively related to provision of ecosystem services. In other words,
23
increases in water contamination or soil compaction were considered to have a negative impact
24
on provision of benefits to humans. These judgments were made by the authors collectively, and
7
1
are documented in Table S1. During this process of assigning signs to environmental variables, it
2
was noted that the relationship between the variables and provision of ecosystem services was
3
dependent on the specific context of the investigation. For example, an increase in nutrient
4
concentrations might be considered negative in one geographic location or ecosystem type, but
5
positive in another: electrical conductivity is usually associated with higher nutrient availability
6
in eroded soils but with increased eutrophication in freshwater ecosystems. For this reason the
7
individual publications were consulted during this assignment process to ascertain the context of
8
each study.
9
10
Data analyses
11
We tested the normality of the data using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. Virtually all tests for
12
combinations of Rest/Ref or Rest/Deg response ratios and ecosystem service types revealed non-
13
normal distributions. Therefore we employed Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests to examine whether
14
median response ratios were different to zero, Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine whether response
15
ratios differed among groups and Spearman Rank tests to determine correlations among service
16
and biodiversity response ratios. For the Wilcoxon Signed Rank and Kruskal-Wallis tests we
17
used the entire set of values extracted from the studies. Spearman Rank correlation analyses were
18
performed with the studies for which both measures of ecosystem services and biodiversity were
19
made. We calculated the means of biodiversity and provisioning, supporting or regulating service
20
response ratios within each study, which resulted in 50 pairs of values.
21
22
2 Results
8
1
To test whether excluding zero values affected our results, we calculated response ratios
2
including zero values using ln((Rest+1)/(X+1)), where X = Ref or Deg. The resulting median
3
response ratios for biodiversity and each ecosystem service were largely similar to those
4
excluding the zero data (Fig S1) and the conclusions were unchanged. To ensure that we used
5
meaningful response ratios, the analyses reported in the main text employed the data set
6
excluding zero values.
7
8
Many studies characterised biodiversity and/or ecosystem services using more than one measure.
9
We considered these separately as they represented a wide variety of forms of response to
10
restoration. However, a possible criticism is that using all measures represents a form of pseudo-
11
replication in the meta-analysis (although this is too conservative because there is no a priori
12
reason to expect all variables within an ecosystem to respond in the same way to restoration).
13
This is only an issue with the Wilcoxon and Kruskal Wallis tests as the Spearman Rank
14
correlations used study means. To ensure that inclusion of all measures did not bias our analyses,
15
we calculated the median of the response ratios where there were multiple measures for
16
biodiversity or a service type within a study, thus ensuring complete independence among data
17
points. Wilcoxon tests using these values gave similar results and the overall conclusions were
18
unchanged (Fig. S2), indicating that assumptions made about the occurrence of statistical
19
dependence in our data did not affect the qualitative results obtained. It should also be noted that
20
a range of different measures of Biodiversity were employed in the analysis, including measures
21
of both species richness and community composition. In some cases, it is conceivable that an
22
increase in species richness did not necessarily represent a recovery of community composition
23
towards that associated with the Reference sites; for example, colonization by ‘weedy’ or
24
invasive species. To avoid this possibility, we followed the interpretations of the authors of each
9
1
study. For example, the proportions of exotic and invasive species (study S14) or of pioneer plant
2
species (study S10) were taken as negative measures of biodiversity. This illustrates a broader
3
issue that despite the substantial body of information incorporated in the meta-analysis, the
4
numerical results that are presented are necessarily a simplified summary of what is a complex
5
issue, and this point should be borne in mind when interpreting the results.
10
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
N = 270
***
N = 195
***
N = 13
ns
Biodiversity
Provisioning
Supporting
B Restored vs Reference
0.5
0.4
N = 14
N = 46
0.3
ns
*
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
N = 270
-0.2
***
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Biodiversity Provisioning
Regulating
Median response ratio
Median response ratio
A Restored vs Degraded
N = 194
***
Supporting
N = 46
***
Regulating
1
2
Figure S1. A re-analysis to assess bias arising from eliminating zero values. Response ratios of
3
biodiversity and ecosystem services in (A) Restored compared with Degraded ecosystems and (B)
4
Restored compared with Reference ecosystems. Response ratios were calculated including zero
5
values of biodiversity or service measures using ln((Rest+1)/(X+1)), where X = Ref or Deg. All
6
response ratios differed significantly from 0 (Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests, *** P<0.001, *
7
P<0.05) except those for provisioning services (ns P>0.05).
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
N = 69
***
Biodiversity
N=5
ns
Provisioning
N = 44
***
Supporting
B Restored vs Reference
0.5
0.4
N = 21
0.3
*
0.2
0.1
0
ns
-0.1
N=6
-0.2
N = 70
-0.3
**
-0.4
-0.5
Regulating
Biodiversity Provisioning
Median response ratio
Median response ratio
A Restored vs Degraded
N = 44
*
Supporting
8
9
Figure S2. A re-analysis to assess bias arising from using multiple measures from each study.
10
Response ratios of biodiversity and ecosystem services in (A) Restored compared with Degraded
11
ecosystems and (B) Restored compared with Reference ecosystems. A single median response
12
ratio was taken from each study to determine any potential bias from using multiple measures.
11
N = 21
***
Regulating
1
Response ratios differed significantly from 0 (Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests, *** P<0.001, *
2
P<0.05) except those for provisioning services (ns P>0.05).
12
Table S1. Data used in the meta-analysis, including: source reference; biome type and broad classification to aquatic (AQU), terrestrial (TE),
tropical (TRO), and temperate (TEMP) biomes; type of degrading activity; type of restoration activity; type of ecosystem service or biodiversity,
the ecosystem services were classified according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (S1); measured variables; units of the measured
variables; and response ratios (data in red were not used because there were negative or zero values in the numerator or denominator and the sign
was changed for the data in yellow because they were negatively related to the provision of the ecosystem service or biodiversity).
Reference
Biome type
Degrading activity
Restoration
activity
Ecosystem
service/Biodiversity
Measured variable
Units
Response Response
ratio
ratio
Rt/Rf
Rt/Dg
S6
Tropical mangrove
(AQ, TRO)
Logging trees
Planting
mangrove trees
Provisioning
Commercial crab
production (Scylla sp)
No. crabs/trap/day
0.009
4.718
S7
Farmland (TE, TEMP)
Cultivation, cropping
Planting flowerrich patches
Biodiversity
Bee diversity
Species density
0.693
1.735
Biodiversity
Hoverfly diversity
Species density
0.251
0.739
Biodiversity
Microbial biomass
nmol/g soil
-0.368
1.099
Supporting
Bray P
mg/kg
-0.904
0.407
Supporting
Soil organic matter
No. of PLFAs
0.000
0.201
Supporting
Soil total N
%
-0.289
0.620
Regulating
Thermal buffering
capacity
ºC
0.082
0.329
S8
S9
Mediterranean
vegetation (TE, TEMP)
Subtropical evergreen
forest (TE, TRO)
Road-cutting
Logging, grazing
Adding topsoil,
sowing native
plants
Ceasing grazing
and logging
13
S10
S11
Seasonal savanna
woodlands (TE, TRO)
Prairie (TE, TEMP)
Mining
Cultivation, cropping
Planting shrubs
Planting native
forbs
Regulating
Thermal buffering
capacity
ºC
0.088
0.219
Biodiversity
Grasshopper diversity
Mean species
richness
-0.177
0.060
Biodiversity
Grasshopper diversity Mean Hill´s diversity
-0.178
0.025
2
-0.626
0.940
g N/m2
-0.540
0.952
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S12
S13
Grasslands (TE,
TEMP)
Tundra and temperate
mountains (TE, TEMP)
Fertilization,
intensive
grazing/cutting
Carnivore
extirpation
Cessation of
fertilization,
extensive
management
Re-introduction of
carnivores
Soil microbial
biomass-C
Soil microbial
biomass-N
g C/m
Supporting
Soil C mineralization
g/m2 d
-0.503
0.344
Supporting
Soil compaction
Bulk density (g/cm3)
-0.194
0.008
2
Supporting
Supporting
Total soil C
Total soil N
g/m
g/m2
-0.524
-0.299
0.008
0.045
Biodiversity
Pioneer plant species
% of total species
-0.981
0.318
Supporting
Regeneration index
% index refered to
reference ecosystem
-0.598
-0.070
Biodiversity
% vigilance of bison
% vigilance time
0.729
1.135
Biodiversity
% vigilance of elk
% vigilance time
0.071
1.840
Biodiversity
% vigilance of moose
% vigilance time
0.134
1.293
14
S14
Mangrove (AQ, TRO)
Logging trees
Planting
mangrove trees
Biodiversity
Crab density
Number/m2
0.427
0.272
Biodiversity
Fauna taxa richness
Number of taxa
-0.015
0.879
Number/m2 x 103
-0.073
1.349
%
-0.030
0.996
%
-0.336
1.835
Supporting
Supporting
Sediment fauna
density
Sediment clay
Sediment organic
matter
Sediment pH
Sediment salinity
pH
PSU
-0.042
0.028
-0.042
-0.122
Supporting
Sediment temperature ºC
-0.050
0.081
Biodiversity
% chaparral extent
%
-1.689
0.531
%
-3.322
4.248
%
-2.419
0.652
Biodiversity
Supporting
Supporting
S15
Mediterranean
woodland (TE, TEMP)
Tree removal and
seeding with
grasses to create
rangeland
Abandonment
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S16
Wetlands (AQ, TEMP)
Range of
Excavation and
disturbances leading banks to raise the
to wetland loss
water table
% dense hardwood
extent
% open hardwood
extent
Biodiversity
Macroinvertebrates
Index of community
integrity
-0.470
0.799
Biodiversity
Exotic and invasive
plant species
% of all species
-1.964
-0.329
Regulating
Regulating
Regulating
Regulating
Regulating
Supporting
Median water depth
Time dry
Time inundated
Time rooting zone
Time saturated
Soil organic matter
cm
%
%
%
%
%
-0.154
-0.787
1.253
-0.017
-0.300
-1.575
-0.754
-0.573
0.212
0.279
0.231
-0.651
15
S17
Forest (TE, TEMP)
Metal-contaminated
mine tailings
Amendment with
lime-rich soil
Biodiversity
Earthworm biomass
mg dry weight
0.562
0.363
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Earthworm survival
Mammal abundance
Soil microbial biomass
-C
Soil microbial biomass
-N
%
Number
-0.163
0.336
0.003
0.847
mg/kg
-1.248
1.033
mg/kg
0.931
2.086
mg
0.054
0.082
0.014
9.146
0.241
0.154
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S18
Farmland (TE, TEMP)
Petroleumcontaminated soils
Biodiversity
Minnow (Pimephales
promelas) growth
Biodiversity
Minnow (P. promelas)
%
survival
Biodiversity
Plant diversity
Richness of three
major families
Regulating
Metal in earthworms
mg Pb/ kg dry weight -0.575
1.069
Regulating
Metal in ryegrass
mg Pb/ kg dry weight -3.283
1.489
Regulating
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Soil Pb
Soil NH4+
Soil NO3
Soil respiration
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
-3.017
2.278
4.748
0.512
0.440
0.941
7.861
1.792
Earthworm survival
Number/jar
-1.532
3.296
Decontamination
Oil and grease (g/kg
dry soil)
-6.667
2.395
Earthworm or
wheat-straw
Biodiversity
addition to remove
petrochemicals
Regulating
16
Regulating
Decontamination
Total petroleum
hydrocarbon (g/kg
dry soil)
-7.279
0.120
Supporting
Soil respiration
CO2 flux (unclear
units)
1.435
0.336
S19
Floodplain river (AQ,
TEMP)
Devegetation,
destabilisation of
shore
Planting
vegetation
Supporting
Large woody debris
Number of pieces/km -1.833
-0.130
S20
Riparian habitat (TE,
TEMP)
Land use change
leading to loss of
riparian trees
Planting trees
Biodiversity
Small mammal
abundance
Abundance/trap night 0.419
0.471
Biodiversity
Small mammal
richness
Number of trapped
species
0.693
0.105
Biodiversity
Acarine abundance
Population density
-0.506
1.164
Biodiversity
Acarine dominant
groups
Number of
codominant groups
0.095
0.526
Supporting
Soil C 0-30 cm
mg/ha
-0.364
0.283
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Soil C 30-60 cm
Soil N 0-30 cm
Soil N 30-60 cm
mg/ha
mg/ha
mg/ha
-0.113
-0.373
-0.041
0.223
0.235
0.182
Biodiversity
Coral abundance
Cover (%)
-1.831
-0.004
Biodiversity
Fish abundance
Number per 50 m2
0.839
2.833
Biodiversity
Fish diversity
Number of species
0.056
1.665
S21
S22
S23
Rain forest (TE, TRO)
Tallgrass prairie (TE,
TEMP)
Coral reefs (AQ, TRO)
Cultivation, cropping
Cessation of
cropping
Planting prairie
Cultivation, cropping species,
prescribed burns
Disturbance, erosion Artificial concrete
of reefs
reefs
17
S24
River (AQ, TEMP)
Embankment of
river channels
Re-connection of
river side
channels
Pine forest (TE, TEMP)
Cessation of
periodic burning
S26
Mangrove (AQ, TRO)
Removal of trees for Planting
wood
mangrove trees
S28
Pond (AQ, TRO)
Subtropical woodland
(TE, TRO)
Eutrophication
Overgrazing
Aquatic vegetation
diversity
Number of species
0.711
1.173
Biodiversity
Plant cover
%
0.965
0.008
Herbaceous
production
Pounds/acre/year
4.007
2.216
Biodiversity
Fish abundance
Number/m
0.417
-0.264
Biodiversity
Juvenile fish diversity
Margalef index
0.066
0.008
Biodiversity
Juvenile fish diversity
0.192
-0.223
Provisioning
Fish biomass
-0.011
-0.453
Biodiversity
Phytoplankton
abundance
mg/l
-1.792
0.773
Biodiversity
Phytoplankton
diversity
bits/mg
-0.405
-0.588
Biodiversity
Phytoplankton
evenness
Derived from
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.445
-0.573
Biodiversity
Phytoplankton
richness
Number of species
-0.262
-0.223
Biodiversity
Total vegetation cover Weighted average, % -0.442
0.821
Regulating
Runoff coefficient
Average daily %
-4.324
1.528
Regulating
Runoff depth
mm
-3.739
1.935
Tree thinning, fuel
removal,
Supporting
prescribed burning
S25
S27
Biodiversity
Combining
differing
proportions of
eutrophic and
oligotrophic water
Exclosure of
grazers
2
Shannon-Weiner
index
g/m2
18
Supporting
Saturated hydraulic
conductivity
Water holding
capacity
Litter cover
Supporting
Rock fragments
Supporting
Rock fragments
% of topsoil by mass
-0.296
-0.232
Supporting
Supporting
Soil bulk density
Soil organic matter
Mg/m3
%
-0.016
-0.768
0.146
1.125
Supporting
C mass (plant
decomposition)
g
0.000
-0.171
g
-0.118
-0.025
g
-0.201
-0.105
g
0.050
0.086
Germination (plant)
% germination mean six species
1.228
-0.235
Biodiversity
Survival (plant)
% survival - mean of
six species
-0.122
-0.082
Biodiversity
Aquatic
macroinvertebrate
abundance
Number of
individuals
-0.471
0.071
Biodiversity
Aquatic
macroinvertebrate
diversity
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.063
0.071
Regulating
Regulating
S29
Marsh (AQ, TEMP)
Iron furnace slag
dumping on salt
marsh
Slag removal to
intertidal depth,
soil and
vegetation
addition
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S30
S31
Floodplain meadows
(TE, TEMP)
River (AQ, TEMP)
Cultivation, planting
crops
Channelization
Sowing grasses,
soil distubance vs
Biodiversity
sowing seed direct
onto bare soil
Artificial riffles
N mass (plant
decomposition)
P mass (plant
decomposition)
Total mass (plant
decomposition)
m/say
-0.412
0.194
%
-0.247
-0.039
%
% cover of soil
surface
-0.652
2.428
-2.354
0.309
19
S32
Riparian forest (TE,
TEMP)
Flow regulation
leading to no
flooding
Managed flooding
Regulating
Water velocity
m/s
-0.471
0.891
Supporting
Accumulation of
forest-floor litter
g/m2
-0.802
-0.317
Mg/ha
0.900
-0.141
g
g/m2
-0.295
-0.295
0.377
-0.014
Density of non
commercial trees
Stems/ha
0.352
1.123
Biodiversity
Density of non
commercial trees saplings
Stems/ha
-1.424
-0.048
Biodiversity
Shrubs and trees
Species number
0.484
0.771
Provisioning
Density of commercial
Stems/ha
trees
-0.801
-1.022
Provisioning
Density of commercial
Stems/ha
trees - saplings
-1.945
-2.627
0.626
-0.877
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S33
Forest (TE, TRO)
Logging, agriculture
Tree planting
Biodiversity
(exotic softwoods)
Biomass of woody
debris
Leaf decomposition
Leaf fall
S34
Pine-oak forest (TE,
TEMP)
Wildfire
Managed surface
fires
Biodiversity
Basal area (trees)
S35
Mediterranean pine
forest (TE, TEMP)
Logging, pastoral
agriculture
Tree planting
Biodiversity
Soil microbial biomass
mg/kg
-C
-0.770
0.441
Supporting
Soil aggregate
stability
%
-0.110
0.082
Supporting
Alkaline-phosphatase
microbial activity
μmol PNP/g h
-0.832
0.590
Supporting
ATP microbial activity
nmol/kg x103
-0.921
0.916
m2/ha
20
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S36
Grassland (TE, TEMP)
Cultivation, planting
crops
Abandonment
Soil basal respiration
Beta-glucosidase
microbial activity
Bulk density
Soil C mineralization
rate
Soil carbonate
concentration
Soil electrical
conductivity
Soil humic substances
C
picog CO2-C/g day
-2.596
1.863
μmol PNP/g h
-1.031
1.624
g/m
-0.234
-0.051
-1
d
-1.204
-1.204
%
0.413
0.958
dS/m
-0.431
-0.767
g/kg
-0.392
1.526
3
Supporting
Microbial respiration
CO2 production 34
days (mg/kg)
-2.353
1.660
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Soil pH
Soil total organic C
Soil water soluble C
pH
g/Kg
g/Kg
0.011
-0.657
-0.958
0.002
1.087
0.447
Biodiversity
Mite abundance
Number/m2
-0.502
1.030
Biodiversity
Mite dDiversity
Shannon-Weiner
index
0.017
0.255
Biodiversity
Mite diversity
Taxonomic
units/sample
-0.890
-0.123
Biodiversity
Mite diversity
Taxonomic
units/sample
-0.730
0.038
Biodiversity
Mite diversity
-0.089
0.288
Biodiversity
Mite diversity
0.025
0.401
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Mite abundance
Mite abundance
0.196
-1.215
1.727
0.657
Shannon-Weiner
index
Shannon-Weiner
index
Number/m2
Number/m2
21
Biodiversity
Mite abundance
Number/m2
-0.619
1.253
Biodiversity
Mite diversity
Taxonomic
units/sample
-0.332
0.031
Biodiversity
Mite diversity
Taxonomic
units/sample
-0.033
0.330
Biodiversity
Mite diversity
Shannon-Weiner
index
0.057
0.295
Supporting
Annual litter
deposition
ton/ha/yr
-0.514
-0.265
Denitrification
potential in water
μg N/kg h
-3.083
-0.711
Supporting
Water microbial
respiration
mg C/kg/day
-1.529
-0.586
Supporting
Water organic matter
%
-1.050
0.388
Supporting
Potential net
mg N/kg/day
mineralization in water
Supporting
Potential net
nitrification in water
mg N/kg/day
1.267
-1.064
Water cleaning to
Biodiversity
decrease nutrients
Phytoplankton
biomass
g/m3
-1.062
1.211
Biodiversity
Phytoplankton
biomass
g/m3
-1.731
0.298
Regulating
Water quality
Index (plankton
functional groups)
-0.483
0.598
S37
Sclerophyll
(Eucalyptus) forest
(TE, TRO)
Bauxite mining
Topsoil addition,
sowing legumes
S38
Streams (AQ, TEMP)
Channeliszation
Reshaping stream
Supporting
banks
S39
Lakes (AQ, TEMP)
Eutrophication
-1.280
22
Water quality
Index (plankton
functional groups)
-0.329
0.136
Runoff
mm/25 mm rain
-0.788
0.205
Supporting
Supporting
Detached sediment
Soil organic matter
kg/ha
%
-0.576
-0.942
2.693
0.103
Biodiversity
Benthic invertebrates
- density
Number/m2
-1.590
-0.922
Biodiversity
Benthic invertebrates
- density
Biomass mg/m2
-1.346
-0.707
Biodiversity
Benthic invertebrates
- diversity
Number of taxa
-1.021
-0.367
Number/μL
1.220
0.033
Biomass mg/L
0.703
0.703
Number of taxa
-0.010
0.363
Regulating
S40
S41
Forest (TE, TEMP)
Lakes (AQ, TEMP)
Tree loss (mining,
logging,
acidification,
grazing)
Introduction of nonnative fish
Soil amendments,
Regulating
planting trees
Poisoning (nonnative) fish,
introduction of
native fish
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Phytoplankton density
Phytoplankton density
Phytoplankton diversity
Biodiversity
Zooplankton - density
Number/L
-0.154
-0.531
Biodiversity
Zooplankton - density
Biomass μg/L
0.020
0.776
Number of species
-0.183
-0.212
μg/L
-0.597
0.335
Biodiversity
Supporting
Zooplankton diversity
Chlorophyll-a
23
S42
S43
S44
Lakes (AQ, TEMP)
Deciduous forest (TE,
TEMP)
Lake (AQ, TEMP)
Damming
Mining spoil dumps
Eutrophication
Removal of dams
Abandonment
Gradient of
eutrophic water
mixed with lake
water
Biodiversity
Herb diversity
Number of species
0.073
0.430
Biodiversity
Shrub diversity
Number of species
0.005
0.111
Regulating
Within year variation
of water level
m
-0.030
0.422
Regulating
Soil S (sulphur)
content
%
-3.611
0.150
Supporting
Supporting
Soil C content
Soil pH
%
(pH)
2.289
0.034
0.932
0.219
Biodiversity
Heterotrophy
Index
0.484
-0.317
Biodiversity
Protozoan diversity
Species richness
0.130
0.125
Biodiversity
Protozoan diversity
Community pollution
value
Index
-0.041
0.167
Index
-0.111
0.049
0.283
5.834
Regulating
S45
Macroalgal beds (AQ,
TEMP)
Disturbance leading Artificial reefs,
to loss of macroalgal planting of
macroalgae
beds
Biodiversity
Macroalgal biomass
g dry weight/m
S46
Grassland and
heathland (TE, TEMP)
Cultivation &
planting crops
Biodiversity
Nematode abundance
Number/100 g dry
soil
-0.192
0.038
Biodiversity
Plant community
diversity
Number of species/5
m2
0.409
0.029
Supporting
Soil fertility
Ellenberg fertility
score
1.382
-0.151
Abandonment
2
24
S47
S48
Subtropical forest (TE,
TRO)
Marshes (AQ, TEMP)
Logging
Phragmites invasion
Cessation of
logging
Phragmites
removal
Biodiversity
Basal area (trees)
m2/ha
-0.231
0.088
Biodiversity
Tree density
Number of tree
stems/ha
-0.071
0.268
Biodiversity
Catch per unit effort
-0.182
-1.281
Biodiversity
Gobiosoma bosc
abundance
Mean fish length
mm
-0.021
-0.068
Biodiversity
Nekton abundance
Catch per unit effort
-0.263
0.325
%
-0.130
-0.130
%
0.425
0.368
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Provisioning
Ameiurus nebulosus
abundance
Catch per unit effort
0.442
0.336
Provisioning
Anguilla rostrata
abundance
Morone saxatilis
abundance
Mean water depth
Mean water salinity
Mean water
temperature
Benthic invertebrate
abundance
Benthic invertebrate
biomass
Benthic invertebrate
diversity (ab)
Invertebrate drift
(abundance)
Benthic dry mass
Catch per unit effort
0.642
-0.744
Catch per unit effort
0.847
1.070
m
%
-0.016
-0.027
-0.061
-0.404
ºC
0.011
0.005
Number/m2
0.253
-0.824
mg/m2
-0.643
0.600
Index
0.200
0.257
number/sec
-0.996
0.276
0.719
0.697
Provisioning
Regulating
Supporting
Supporting
S49
Streams (AQ, TRO)
Water diversion
Resident nekton
species
Transient nekton
species
Restoration of flow Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Supporting
2
g/m
25
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S50
Salt marsh (AQ,
TEMP)
Man-made
structures altering
hydrology
Digging culverts,
plugging ditches,
excavation
Allowing wildfires
0.446
0.872
μS/cm
g/m2 day
-0.278
0.339
0.006
0.265
μmol
0.023
0.157
μmol
-0.087
-0.043
ºC
-0.227
0.073
μmol
-0.009
0.030
Bird density
Birds/ha
-0.021
-0.007
Biodiversity
Bird species richness
Number of species
0.016
-0.160
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Brackish plant cover
Fish density
%
fish/m2
0.803
-0.240
-0.516
-0.163
Biodiversity
Halophyte plant cover
%
-0.421
-0.142
Number of species
-0.059
0.031
Number of species
0.015
-0.029
Biodiversity
Pine forest (TE, TEMP) Fire exclusion
μg/cm2
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S51
Cholorophyll-a in
benthos
Water conductivity
Leaf litter in water
Nitrate + Nitrite in
water
Orthophosphate in
water
Water temperature
Total dissolved
organic C in water
Nekton species
richness
Vegetation species
richness
Regulating
Tidal height
% unrestricted
maximum
-0.297
0.673
Supporting
Substrate salinity
ppt
-0.061
0.168
Biodiversity
Native plant cover
%/0.1 ha
-0.008
0.006
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Plant cover
Plant diversity
Plant layer density
%
H
Index
-0.560
-0.248
-0.081
0.065
-0.118
-0.269
26
Plant species richness Number/0.1 ha
-0.222
0.237
Supporting
Litter + duff layer
(organic)
Depth in cm
-0.125
-0.511
Supporting
Standing crop
kg/ha
-1.059
0.681
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.083
1.395
0.236
8.821
S52
Pine forest (TE, TEMP) Tree felling, grazing
S53
Oak forest (TE, TEMP)
Acidification by air
pollution
Soil amendments,
Biodiversity
tree/shrub planting
Plant diversity
S54
Estuary (AQ, TEMP)
Reef disturbance
Articial reefs
Biodiversity
Number of
2
Amphipod abundance individuals/0.25m
trap
Biodiversity
Decapod abundance
Number of
individuals/0.25m2
trap
-0.577
1.513
Biodiversity
Fish abundance
Number of
individuals/fish trap
0.121
1.015
Biodiversity
Fish diversity
Species richness/fish
0.042
trap
1.705
Biodiversity
Moss cover
%
0.442
-0.223
Biodiversity
Shredder abundance
-0.573
-0.277
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Shredder biomass
Shredder evenness
Number of
individuals
mg
Index
0.007
-0.040
-0.139
0.099
Biodiversity
Shredder richness
Number of species
-0.151
0.150
m/s
0.095
-0.375
m
m3/s
%
0.318
1.170
-0.163
0.147
0.109
0.268
S55
Stream (AQ, TEMP)
Channelization
Abandonment
Biodiversity
Boulders in
stream
Regulating
Regulating
Regulating
Regulating
Current velocity of
water
Water depth
Water discharge
Water gradient
27
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S56
S57
S58
Mangrove (AQ, TRO)
Mediterranean riparian
meadows (TE, TEMP)
Savanna (TE, TRO)
Stream incision
leading to drainage
Road building
Removal of dikes
Ponds, plugs,
creation of new
streams
Planting of
grasses
μE/l
0.028
-0.022
%
0.045
0.818
μS/cm
0.168
0.018
-0.140
-0.140
0.383
0.535
-0.015
-0.044
Leaf mass loss in
%
water (decomposition)
Supporting
Median particle size in
cm
water
Water pH
Biodiversity
Fish abundance
Number of fish
4.631
6.613
Biodiversity
Fish species richness
Number of species
0.486
1.466
Regulating
Water table position
realtive to land
surface
m
-0.072
-1.833
Regulating
Water table position
realtive to land
surface
m
0.487
-1.273
Biodiversity
Plant diversity (1 yr)
Species richness
-0.262
1.204
Biodiversity
Plant diversity (12 yr)
Species richness
-0.262
1.204
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Soil C (1 yr)
Soil C (12 yr)
Soil N (1 yr)
Soil N (12 yr)
pH-H2O (1 yr)
pH-H2O (12 yr)
%
%
mg/g
mg/g
pH
pH
-0.618
-0.350
-1.019
-0.776
0.040
-0.131
0.777
1.045
0.847
1.090
0.125
-0.045
Supporting
Soil bulk density (1 yr) g/m3
-0.061
0.057
Supporting
Impoundment using
dikes
Water alkalinity
Retentiveness of
coarse particle
organic matter in
water
Water conductivity
28
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S59
Semiarid woodland
(TE, TRO)
Creation of
nutrient rich
Grazing, soil erosion patches with tree Supporting
branches, fertilizer
or litter
S60
Tallgrass prairie (TE,
TEMP)
Cultivation, planting
crops
Sowing prairie
plants
Metal contamination
Soil ameliorations
from an As smelter
0.000
0.118
μg/g
μg/g
0.559
0.617
1.812
1.869
-0.026
-0.015
-0.292
0.937
log(counts)
-0.033
-0.015
g/g
-0.612
1.163
%
Biodiversity
Bacteria counts
log(counts)
Biodiversity
Soil microbial biomass μmol/g
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Soil N-fixing bacteria
counts
Soil water holding
capacity
Soil bulk density
Soil C:N ratio
Soil moisture
Soil organic matter
Soil total C
Soil total N
Soil total S
g/m
ratio
%
%
%
%
%
-0.333
0.347
-0.171
-0.325
-0.394
-0.616
0.039
0.177
0.124
0.327
0.889
1.222
0.657
1.243
Biodiversity
Earthworm biomass
g fresh weight
-0.146
1.088
Biodiversity
Earthworm presence
% compared to
control
-2.038
-1.540
% after 3 weeks
-0.048
0.796
% compared to
control
-2.372
6.838
Regulating
Cropland (TE, TEMP)
g/m3
Foliage cover
(gain/lossess)
Biodiversity
S61
Soil bulk density (12
yr)
Total soil P (1 yr)
Total soil P (12 yr)
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Earthworm survival 3
weeks
Rhizobium nodule
count
3
29
Supporting
Regulating
Regulating
0.753
μg/g dry weight plant
-0.836
0.091
mg/kg soil
-3.000
1.228
mg/kg air dried soil
-2.817
0.284
Regulating
Bioaccessibility of Cd
mg/kg air dried soil
-1.456
0.187
μg/g dry weight plant
-0.721
1.430
mg/kg soil
-2.560
1.064
Score
-1.070
-0.249
Regulating
Metal-contaminated
mine waste
-0.578
Bioaccessibility of As
Regulating
Meadow (TE, TEMP)
As concentration in
beans
As concentration in
soil
g fresh weight/plant
Regulating
Regulating
S62
Shoot yield of beans
Cd concentration in
beans
Cd concentration in
soil
Response of various
contamination
indicators
Supporting
Lettuce leaf yield
g fresh weight/leaf
-0.151
0.649
Supporting
pH (water)
pH
-0.022
0.175
Vegetation cover
%
-0.596
5.791
Biodiversity
Actinomycetes in soil
Colony forming
units/g wet weight
0.040
0.562
Biodiversity
Arbuscular
mycorrhizae
colonization Festuca
% colonization
-0.804
2.192
Biodiversity
Arbuscular
mycorrhizae
colonization Poa
% colonization
-0.391
1.447
Lime addition (soil
Biodiversity
amendment)
30
S63
Savanna (TE, TRO)
Cultivation, planting
crops
Abandonment
Biodiversity
Endospores in soil
Colony forming
units/g wet weight
-0.458
0.220
Biodiversity
Fungi in soil
Colony forming
units/g wet weight
0.008
0.139
Biodiversity
Heterotrophic bacteria Colony forming
in soil
units/g wet weight
-0.027
0.261
Supporting
Microbe activity
across time in soil
Absorbance
-1.056
2.079
Supporting
Carbon sources used
in soil
Number of active
wells (abs. >0.01)
-0.303
0.750
Supporting
Supporting
Soil moisture
Soil pH
%
-1.664
0.146
0.223
0.541
Biodiversity
Bacterial species
richness - Aggregate
Soil Fraction > 2000
microm
Number of species
0.742
0.211
Biodiversity
Bacterial diversity Aggregate Soil
Fraction > 2000
microm
Shannon-Weiner
index
0.385
0.084
Biodiversity
Bacterial equitability Aggregate Soil
Fraction > 2000
microm
Equitability based on
Shannon-Weiner
index
0.108
0.021
31
S64
Mediterranean
woodland (TE, TEMP)
Mining
Tree planting
Biodiversity
Bacterial species
richness - Aggregate
Soil Fraction 2-50
microm
Number of species
-0.305
0.693
Biodiversity
Bacterial diversity Aggregate Soil
Fraction 2-50 microm
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.137
0.257
Biodiversity
Bacterial equitability Aggregate Soil
Fraction 2-50 microm
Equitability based on
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.033
0.011
Biodiversity
Soil microbial colonies
Colony forming units
x 106
-1.704
0.245
Supporting
Soil organic C
mg C/g
-0.214
0.552
Supporting
Soil microbial activity μg Glucose/h
beta-glucosidase
-0.284
0.293
Supporting
Soil microbial activity μg PNP/h
phosphatase
0.022
1.440
Supporting
Soil organic N
mg N/g
-0.320
0.655
Supporting
Soil organic residues
%
0.832
3.344
Biodiversity
Ant abundance-10 yr
Number of
individuals
0.752
0.163
Biodiversity
Ant abundance-20 yr
Number of
individuals
0.487
-0.102
Number of species
-0.134
0.336
Number of species
0.000
0.470
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Ant species richness10 yr
Ant species richness20 yr
32
S65
Stream (AQ, TEMP)
Damming
Dam removal
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S66
Abandonment
Semi-natural grassland
(cessation of
(TE, TEMP)
grazing)
Reinstatement of
grazing
Benthic invertabrate
abundance
Benthic invertabrate
richness
Benthic invertebrate
evenness
Number of
individuals/m2
1.293
0.628
Rarefied richness
-0.350
-0.357
Hulbert´s index
-0.095
-0.095
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth rarefied species
richness (all species)
Number of species
-0.139
-0.070
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth rarefied species
richness (grassland
species)
Number of species
-0.143
-0.071
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth
abundance (all
species)
Number of
individuals
-0.002
-0.888
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth
Number of
abundance (grassland
individuals
species)
0.010
-0.857
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth
Alatalo´s index
evenness (all species)
-0.144
0.035
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth
evenness (grassland
species)
Alatalo´s index
-0.121
0.033
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth
species richness (all
species)
Number of species
-0.145
-0.396
Biodiversity
Butterfly & moth
species richness
(grassland species)
Number of species
-0.139
-0.295
33
S67
Abandonment
Semi-natural grassland
(cessation of
(TE, TEMP)
grazing)
Reinstatement of
grazing
Biodiversity
Accumulated plant
richness
Number of species
-0.189
0.103
Biodiversity
Plant species
richness/patch
Number/grassland
patch
-0.185
0.116
Plant species
richness/plot
Dung beetle
equitability
Dung beetle species
diversity
Dung beetle species
richness
Dung beettle
abundance
Number/m2
-0.418
0.365
Based on SW index
-0.267
0.176
SW
-0.407
0.742
Number of species
-0.070
1.524
Number of
individuals
-0.166
-0.190
Biodiversity
Beetle diversity at
plantings
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.130
0.087
Biodiversity
Beetle diversity at
natural regrowth
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.050
0.167
Biodiversity
Beetle species
richness at plantings
Number of species
-0.372
0.357
Biodiversity
Beetle species
richness at natural
regrowth
Number of species
-0.189
0.539
Biodiversity
Canopy plant diversity Shannon-Weiner
at plantings
index
-1.006
4.663
Biodiversity
Canopy plant diversity Shannon-Weiner
at natural regrowth
index
-0.232
5.438
Biodiversity
S68
Forest (TE, TRO)
Fragmentation by
logging
Cessation of
logging
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S69
Forest (TE, TEMP)
Tree clearance for
grazing
Tree planting or
natural regrowth
34
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Creating gaps in
levees
6.685
Number of species
-0.368
6.802
Jaccard index
-0.496
0.578
Jaccard index
0.074
1.149
Shannon-Weiner
index
0.182
5.620
Biodiversity
Regenerating plant
diversity at natural
regrowth
Shannon-Weiner
index
0.502
5.940
Biodiversity
Regenerating plant
species richness at
plantings
Number of species
0.049
7.650
Number of species
0.300
7.901
0.010
0.192
-0.266
-0.083
Biodiversity
Levee creation
-0.486
Regenerating plant
diversity at plantings
Biodiversity
Interior marsh (AQ,
TRO)
Canopy plant species
richness at natural
regrowth
Floristic similarity at
plantings
Floristic similarity at
natural regrowth
Number of species
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S70
Canopy plant species
richness at plantings
Regenerating plant
species richness at
natural regrowth
Spider diversity at
plantings
Spider diversity at
natural regrowth
Shannon-Weiner
index
Shannon-Weiner
index
Biodiversity
Spider species
richness at plantings
Number of species
-0.252
0.154
Biodiversity
Spider species
richness at natural
regrowth
Number of species
-0.310
0.095
Biodiversity
Nekton density - May
2002
Number/m2
-1.420
-0.201
35
Biodiversity
Nekton density - Sept
2002
Number/m2
Regulating
Sediment deposition
with hurricane data
-1.133
-0.560
g/m /day
-0.224
-1.349
Regulating
Sediment deposition
g/m2/day
without hurricane data
-0.840
-0.318
Supporting
Salinity in landscape
A
psu
-0.438
-0.298
Supporting
Vegetation in
landscape A
Stem density/0.25 m2 0.915
-0.093
Supporting
Vegetation in
landscape C
Stem density/0.25 m2 0.737
0.444
2
S71
Mediterranean reefs
(AQ, TEMP)
Artificial reefs
Disturbance by trawl
(protection against Biodiversity
fishing
fishing)
Fish species richness
Number of species
0.327
0.744
S72
Forest, savanna,
prairie (TE, TEMP)
Clearing, cropping
% of coniferous forest
original extent
% of original extent
-0.023
0.050
% of original extent
0.000
0.059
% of original extent
0.022
-0.023
% of original extent
0.000
0.440
% of original extent
0.004
0.036
% of original extent
0.000
0.046
Abandonment
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
% of coniferous
savanna original
extent
% of deciduous forest
original extent
% of deciduous
savanna origianl
extent
% of mixed forest
original extent
% of mixed savanna
original extent
36
S73
S74
S75
Salt marsh (AQ,
TEMP)
Mesic forests (TE,
TRO)
Bay (AQ, TEMP)
Causeway
(restricting water
movement)
Logging, grazing
Aquaculture
Culverts in
causeway
Cessation of
grazing, tree
planting
Artificial reef
Biodiversity
% of prairie original
extent
% of original extent
-0.001
0.039
Biodiversity
Nekton species
richness
Number/m2
0.202
0.949
Biodiversity
Total decapod density Number/m2
-0.741
2.353
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Total fish density
Total nekton density
2
Number/m
Number/m2
-0.075
-0.205
1.250
1.515
Supporting
Soil C
%
0.143
0.734
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Soil Ca
Soil N
Soil Nitrate
ppm
%
ppm
-1.253
-0.301
-0.840
1.386
0.210
2.251
Supporting
Soil P
Not mentioned
-1.322
-0.025
Supporting
pH
Black sea bass
(Centropristis striata)
density
pH
0.020
-0.094
Number/trap
0.493
0.683
Provisioning
Cuner (Tautogolabrus
Number/trap
adspersus) density
0.549
1.935
Provisioning
Scup (Stenotomus
chrysops) density Age >1
Number/trap
-0.916
-2.216
Provisioning
Scup (S. chrysops)
density - Age 0
Number/trap
0.762
-0.236
Provisioning
Scup (S. chrysops)
density - Age 1
Number/trap
-0.511
-2.512
Provisioning
37
S76
S77
S78
S79
S80
Salt marsh (AQ,
TEMP)
Dikes
Removal of dikes
Stream (AQ, TEMP)
Forested banks
(buffers)
Revegetation of
banks
Grassland (TE, TEMP)
Dry forest (TE, TRO)
Peatland (AQ, TEMP)
Ash waste from
power station
Logging, pasture
establishment
Drainage & peat
mining
Topsoil, fertilizer,
grass seeding
Abandonment
Provisioning
Tulog (Tautoga onitis)
Number/trap
density
7.170
1.466
Biodiversity
Vegetation cover
%
-0.381
1.840
Biodiversity
Vegetation cover
%
-0.446
1.812
Biodiversity
Biotic integrity
Fish index
-0.195
-0.001
Supporting
Stream visual
assessment protocol
Physical condition
index
-0.166
0.080
Biodiversity
Ant abundance
Number per transect
of five traps
0.789
4.286
Biodiversity
Ant species richness
Number of species
sampled
-0.474
0.658
Biodiversity
Vegetation density
Individuals/100 m2
0.417
-2.996
Biodiversity
Vegetation species
richness
Total number of
species
-0.391
-0.197
CO2 uptake
alpha coefficient
-0.448
0.833
Gross ecosystem
production
Modeled total
respiration
Spring flora
abundance
GPmax g CO2/m
day
Blockage of drains Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S81
Grassland (TE, TEMP)
Deer grazing
Deer exclosure
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Spring flora diversity
Biodiversity
Spring flora evenness
2
0.293
g CO2/m2 day
-0.084
0.198
Plant/100 m2
1.021
0.705
-1.355
0.131
-0.619
0.272
Shannon-Weiner
index
Based on ShannonWeiner index
38
Spring flora species
richness
Cover by long-lived
grasses
Cover by plants toxic
to herbivores
Perennial plant
species diversity
Perennial plant
species richness
Shrub cover
Vegetation cover
Provisioning
Biodiversity
S82
Rangelands (TE,
TEMP)
Overgrazing
Exclosure of
livestock
Number of species
-1.299
0.012
%
-0.481
3.768
%
-0.425
0.503
Shannon-Weiner
index
-0.129
-0.273
Number/1-ha plot
-0.370
-0.017
%
%
-1.722
-0.286
-0.425
1.022
Preference by
livestock
Relative preference
index
-0.547
1.323
Supporting
Bare soil
Bare patch index
-0.644
-0.014
Plant species richness Number of species
-0.166
0.868
0.007
1.739
-0.007
1.726
Number of species
-0.304
2.207
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S83
Grassland (TE, TEMP)
Agricultural
improvement of
grassland
Less intensive
management
Biodiversity
S84
Forest (TE, TRO)
Mine spoil
Natural revegetation
Biodiversity
Soil bacteria species
diversity
Soil bacteria species
diversity
Soil bacteria species
richness
Soil bacteria species
richness
Shannon-Weiner
index
Shannon-Weiner
index
Number of species
-0.389
2.122
Biodiversity
Plant Total species
richness
Number of species/3
ha
-0.895
1.393
Supporting
Stem density (trees)
Number/100 m2
-0.792
2.704
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
S85
Forest (TE, TRO)
Logging & grazing
Tree planting
39
S86
Subtropical forest (TE,
TRO)
Tree and
Pb/Zn smelter aerial
groundcover
pollution
planting
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Abundance of PLFAactinomycetes in soil
Abundance of PLFAalgae in soil
Abundance of PLFAbacteria in soil
Abundance of PLFAfungi in soil
Abundance of PLFAmonosaturated in soil
Abundance of PLFAprotozoa in soil
Abundance of PLFAsaturated in soil
Fungal to bacteria
PFLA ratio in soil
Monosaturated to
saturated PFLA ratio
in soil
ng/g dry weight
-0.274
2.447
ng/g dry weight
-0.659
2.958
ng/g dry weight
0.058
1.939
ng/g dry weight
-1.487
4.212
ng/g dry weight
-0.715
3.878
ng/g dry weight
-0.300
2.843
ng/g dry weight
-0.571
2.236
Ratio
-0.905
3.052
Ratio
-0.301
1.523
Regulating
Total Pb in soil
mg/kg dry weight
-2.869
-0.851
Regulating
Total Zn in soil
mg/kg dry weight
-2.335
-1.003
Regulating
Soil water holding
capacity
%
-0.346
0.210
Supporting
Available soil P
mg/kg dry weight
0.148
0.893
Supporting
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
Enzyme activity - CMμg G/g dw /24 h
cellulase in soil
Enzyme activity μg G/g dw /24 h
invertase in soil
-0.008
0.141
-1.384
1.930
-0.101
1.371
Supporting
Supporting
40
S87
S88
Stream (AQ, TEMP)
Non-native
(Ailanthus) invasion
Dune destruction
Subtropical sand dunes
during construction
(TE, TRO)
work
Exclusion of nonnative,
replacement with
native trees
Supporting
Enzym activity phenol-oxidase in soil
μM DOPA/g dw/h
-0.260
0.288
Supporting
Enzym activity protease in soil
μg TYR/g dw/2 h−1
-0.480
0.616
Supporting
Soil NH4-N
mg/kg dry weight
-0.279
0.424
Supporting
Soil NO3-N
mg/kg dry weight
-0.206
0.397
Supporting
Soil organic C
g/kg dry weight
-0.203
0.485
Supporting
Supporting
Soil pH
Soil porosity
%
-0.083
-0.258
0.140
0.281
Supporting
Soil total N
g/kg dry weight
-0.405
0.347
Supporting
Soil total P
g/kg dry weight
-0.308
0.704
Biodiversity
Shredder abundance
g/AFDM
-0.396
-1.179
Supporting
Decomposition rate
day−1
1.019
-0.501
Plant cover
%
0.061
9.166
Artificial dune with
Biodiversity
planting
Biodiversity
Plant species diversity Simpson´s index
-1.504
2.079
Biodiversity
Plant species richness Number of species
-0.955
8.351
41
S89
Bog (AQ, TEMP)
Drained, harvested
Drain blocking,
plant fragments,
mulch, P fertilizer
Biodiversity
Microbial biomass - Cmg/g
FE
-0.835
0.622
Biodiversity
Peat microbial
biomass - N-FE
μg/g
-1.026
0.442
Supporting
Peat microbial activity
- aerobic basal
respiration rate
μg C-CO2/g h
-1.266
0.031
Supporting
Peat microbial activity
- anaerobic basal
respiration rate
μg C-CO2/g h
-1.386
-0.236
microg NH4+/g
0.175
-0.097
mg/l
Ratio
mg/g
-0.401
-0.100
1.007
0.056
-0.076
0.036
μS
-1.024
-0.686
μg/g
mg/g
mg/g
mg/kg
μg/g
pH
Index
mg/g
μg/g
-0.839
0.881
0.118
-0.016
-0.942
0.174
1.781
-1.046
-0.049
0.115
0.000
0.037
0.815
0.164
0.015
-0.315
0.167
0.129
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Peat microbial activity
- arginine
ammonification
Peat bulk density
Peat C/N ratio
Peat total Ca
Peat electrical
conductivity
Peat total K
Peat total Mg
Peat total N
Peat NH4+
Peat total P
Peat pH
Peat pyrophosphate
Soluble organic C
Soluble organic N
42
S90
S91
S92
Forest (TE, TEMP)
Coastal salt marsh
(AQ, TEMP)
Forest (TE, TRO)
Management for
timber production
Dikes
Clearance,
agriculture
Management for
biodiversity
Removal of dikes
Abandonment
Planting trees
Biodiversity
Composition and
abundance of small
mammal community
% of maximum
0.000
2.120
Biodiversity
Vertebrate diversity
% of maximum
0.000
0.446
Supporting
Secondary production % of maximum
-0.062
1.599
-0.020
1.119
Supporting
Landscape health
Average of diversity,
soil function and
ecosystem
productivity
Regulating
Sedimentation
Sediment elevation
(m)
-0.196
0.066
Supporting
Productivity
Basal area subtropical forest old-field regrowth
g/m2/yr
0.830
0.672
m2/ha
0.097
6.769
Biodiversity
Basal area subtropical forest young monoculture
timber plantations
m2/ha
-0.759
5.914
Biodiversity
Basal area subtropical forest mixed timber
plantations
m2/ha
-1.279
5.394
Biodiversity
Basal area subtropical forest restoration plantings
m2/ha
-0.457
6.215
Biodiversity
43
Biodiversity
Basal area subtropical forest - old
m2/ha
monoculture timber
plantations
-0.013
6.660
Biodiversity
Canopy cover subtropical forest old-field regrowth
%
-2.385
7.003
Biodiversity
Canopy cover subtropical forest young monoculture
timber plantations
%
-0.620
4.151
Biodiversity
Canopy cover subtropical forest mixed timber
plantations
%
-0.453
4.317
Biodiversity
Canopy cover subtropical forest restoration plantings
%
-0.186
4.585
Biodiversity
Canopy cover subtropical forest - old
%
monoculture timber
plantations
-0.328
4.443
Biodiversity
Stem density subtropical forest old-field regrowth
Stems/ha
-1.486
4.673
Biodiversity
Stem density subtropical forest young monoculture
timber plantations
Stems/ha
-1.068
5.169
Biodiversity
Stem density subtropical forest mixed timber
plantations
Stems/ha
-0.554
5.683
44
Biodiversity
Stem density subtropical forest restoration plantings
Stems/ha
0.196
6.433
Biodiversity
Stem density subtropical forest - old
Stems/ha
monoculture timber
plantations
-0.527
5.710
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- subtropical forest old-field regrowth
volume index
-5.362
0.000
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- subtropical forest young monoculture
timber plantations
volume index
-0.616
3.995
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- subtropical forest mixed timber
plantations
volume index
0.095
4.706
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- subtropical forest restoration plantings
volume index
-0.777
3.834
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- subtropical forest old monoculture
timber plantations
volume index
0.732
5.343
Supporting
Leaf litter - subtropical
forest - old-field
tons/ha
regrowth
-0.372
1.000
45
Supporting
Leaf litter - subtropical
forest - young
tons/ha
monoculture timber
plantations
-0.588
1.555
Supporting
Leaf litter - subtropical
forest - mixed timber
tons/ha
plantations
-0.372
1.771
Supporting
Leaf litter - subtropical
forest - restoration
tons/ha
plantings
-0.107
2.036
Supporting
Leaf litter - subtropical
forest - old
tons/ha
monoculture timber
plantations
0.153
2.296
Biodiversity
Basal area - tropical
forest - old-field
regrowth
m2/ha
-2.902
6.230
Biodiversity
Basal area - tropical
forest - young
monoculture timber
plantations
m2/ha
-1.567
7.566
Biodiversity
Basal area - tropical
forest - mixed timber
plantations
m2/ha
-1.420
7.713
Biodiversity
Basal area - tropical
forest - restoration
plantings
m2/ha
-1.014
8.118
Biodiversity
Basal area - tropical
forest - old
monoculture timber
plantations
m2/ha
0.104
9.237
Biodiversity
Canopy cover tropical forest - oldfield regrowth
%
-1.287
8.102
46
Biodiversity
Canopy cover tropical forest - young
monoculture timber
plantations
%
-0.706
8.683
Biodiversity
Canopy cover tropical forest - mixed
timber plantations
%
-0.198
9.190
Biodiversity
Canopy cover tropical forest restoration plantings
%
-0.110
9.278
Biodiversity
Canopy cover tropical forest - old
monoculture timber
plantations
%
-0.075
4.696
Biodiversity
Stem density - tropical
forest - old-field
Stems/ha
regrowth
-1.456
4.704
Biodiversity
Stem density - tropical
forest - young
Stems/ha
monoculture timber
plantations
-0.946
5.214
Biodiversity
Stem density - tropical
forest - mixed timber
Stems/ha
plantations
0.107
6.267
Biodiversity
Stem density - tropical
forest - restoration
Stems/ha
plantings
0.056
6.215
Biodiversity
Stem density - tropical
forest - old
Stems/ha
monoculture timber
plantations
0.021
6.257
47
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- tropical forest - oldfield regrowth
volume index
-1.719
3.643
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- tropical forest young monoculture
timber plantations
volume index
-2.718
2.644
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- tropical forest mixed timber
plantations
volume index
-2.099
3.264
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- tropical forest restoration plantings
volume index
-0.569
4.793
Supporting
Coarse woody debris
- tropical forest - old
monoculture timber
plantations
volume index
-0.511
4.100
Supporting
Leaf litter - tropical
forest - old-field
regrowth
tons/ha
0.000
1.372
Supporting
Leaf litter - tropical
forest - young
monoculture timber
plantations
tons/ha
-0.273
1.099
Supporting
Leaf litter - tropical
forest - mixed timber
plantations
tons/ha
-0.147
1.225
Supporting
Leaf litter - tropical
forest - restoration
plantings
tons/ha
-0.016
1.355
48
Supporting
S93
Prairie (TE, TEMP)
Cultivation, cropping Planting of grass
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
S94
Marsh (AQ, TEMP)
Phragmites invasion
Glyphosate to kill
Phragmites
Leaf litter - tropical
forest - old
monoculture timber
plantations
Soil bulk density - 6 yr
old restoration
Soil bulk density - 26
yr old restoration
Soil bulk density - 60
yr old restoration
Soil organic carbon 6 yr old restoration
Soil organic carbon 26 yr old restoration
Soil organic carbon 60 yr old restoration
Soil organic N - 6 yr
old restoration
Soil organic N - 26 yr
old restoration
Soil organic N - 60 yr
old restoration
tons/ha
0.015
2.159
mg/m3
-0.089
-0.065
mg/m3
-0.027
0.032
mg/m3
-0.086
0.049
t C/ha
-0.195
0.090
t C/ha
-0.401
0.095
t C/ha
-0.417
0.137
t N/ha
-0.234
0.055
t N/ha
-0.383
0.000
t N/ha
-0.295
0.046
Biodiversity
Arthropod abundance
Cumulative number
of individuals per m2
-0.006
0.977
Biodiversity
Arthropod diversity wetland
Shannon-Weiner
index
0.014
0.719
Biodiversity
Arthropod richness wetland
Number of species
0.053
0.896
Regulating
Water movement
Plaster mass loss
(g/day)
-0.320
-0.778
49
Supporting
Aboveground live
biomass
g dry weight/m2
-0.123
-0.873
Supporting
Litter biomass
g dry weight/m2
-0.225
-1.688
0.321
0.024
0.015
0.043
0.131
1.482
-0.543
0.291
0.316
0.288
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting
Stem density
Total leaf N
Total soil C
Total soil N
Salinity
2
Number/m
%
%
%
ppt
50
References
S1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (Island Press,
Washington, DC, 2005).
S2. D. M. Olson, E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanayake, N. D. Burgess, G. V. N. Powell et al.,
BioScience 51, 933 (2001).
S3. J. Gurevitch, L. V. Hedges, in Design and analysis of ecological experiments S. M.
Scheiner, J. Gurevitch, Eds. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001), pp. 347-370.
S4. B. J. Cardinale, D. S. Srivastava, J. E. Duffy, J. P. Wright et al., Nature 443, 989 (2006).
S5. M. Marvier, C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, P. Kareiva, Science 316, 1475 (2007).
S6. M. E. Walton, L. Le Vay, J. H. Lebata, J. Binas, J. H. Primavera, Biol. Cons. 138, 180
(2007).
S7. F. Kohler, J. Verhulst, R. van Klink, D. Kleijn, J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 753 (2008).
S8. S. H. DeGrood, V. P. Claassen, K. M. Scow, Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 1427 (2005).
S9. R. Aerts, T. Wagendorp, E. November, M. Behailu, J. Deckers et al., Rest. Ecol. 12, 586
(2004).
S10. A. N. Andersen, J. A. Ludwig, L. M. Lowe, D. C. F. Rentz, Austral Ecol. 26, 213-222
(2001).
S11. S. G. Baer, D. J. Kitchen, J. M. Blair, C. W. Rice, Ecol. Appl. 12, 1688 (2002).
S12. R. M. Bekker, G. L. Verweij, R.E. N. Smith, R. Reine, J. P. Bakker et al., J. Appl. Ecol.
34, 1293 (1997).
S13. J. Berger, Cons. Biol. 21, 1105 (2007).
S14. J. O. Bosire, F. Dahdouh-Guebas J.G. Kairo, S. Cannicci, N. Koedam, Biodiversity Cons.
13, 1059 (2004).
S15. C. N. Brooks, A. M. Merenlender, Rest. Ecol. 9, 1 (2001).
S16. R. P. Brooks, D. H. Wardrop, C. A. Cole, D. A. Campbell, Ecol. Eng. 24, 331 (2005).
51
S17. S. Brown, M. Sprenger, A. Maxemchuk, H. Compton, J. Environ. Qual. 34, 139 (2005).
S18. M. A. Callaham, A. J. Stewart, C. Alarcon, S. J. Mcmillen, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 21,
1658 (2002).
S19. T. R. Angradi, E. W. Schweiger, D. W. Bolgrien, P. Ismert, T. Selle, River Res. Appl. 20,
829 (2004).
S20. D. C. Andersen, S. M. Nelson, Regul. Rivers Res. Manage. 15, 377 (1999).
S21. M. A. Badejo, Pedobiologia 39, 555 (1995).
S22. K. R. Brye, J. M. Norman, S. T. Gower, Am. Midl. Nat. 148, 218 (2002).
S23. S. Clark, A. J. Edwards, Bul. Mar. Sci. 55, 724 (1994).
S24. H. Coops, K. Tockner, C. Amoros, T. Hein, G. Quinn, Wetlands Nat. Resource Manage.
190, 15 (2006).
S25. W. W. Covington, P. Z. Fule, M. M. Moore, S. C. Hart, T. E. Kolb et al., J. For. 95, 23
(1997).
S26. B. I. Crona, R. Ronnback, Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 74, 44 (2007).
S27. L. O. Crossetti, C. E. D. Bicudo, Hydrobiologia 541, 71 (2005).
S28. K. Descheemaeker, J. Nyssen, J. Poesen, D. Raes, M. Haile et al., J. Hydrol. 331, 219
(2006).
S29. T. M. Dick, W. J. Streever, O. O. Osunkoya, Rest. Ecol. 10, 11 (2002)
S30. T. W. Donath, N. Hölzel, A. Otte, Biol. Cons. 130, 315 (2006).
S31. M. Ebrahimnezhad, D. M. Harper, Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 7, 187
(1997).
S32. L. M. Ellis, M. C. Molles, C. S. Crawford, Rest. Ecol. 7, 193 (1999).
S33. R. A. Fimbel, C. C. Fimbel, For. Ecol. Manage. 81, 215 (1996).
S34. P. Z. Fule, J. P. Roccaforte, W. Wallace Covington, Environ. Manage. 40, 623 (2007).
S35. M. Goberna, J. Sánchez, J. A. Pascual, C. García, Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 2233 (2006).
52
S36. D. Gormsen, K. Hedlund, W. Huifu, Appl. Soil Ecol. 31,147 (2006).
S37. C. D. Grant, S. C. Ward, S. C. Morley, Rest. Ecol. 15, S94-S103 (2007).
S38. P. M. Groffman, A. M. Dorsey, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 24, 613 (2005).
S39. E. Hajnal, J. Padisak, Hydrobiologia 599, 227 (2008).
S40. C. P. Harden, L. Mathews, Environ. Manage. 26, 163 (2000).
S41. A. L. Harig, M. B. Bain, Ecol. Appl. 8, 71 (1998).
S42. N. M. Hill, P. A. Keddy, I. C. Wisheu, Environ. Manage. 22, 723 (1998).
S43. R. F. Huttl, E. Weber, Naturwissenschaften 88, 322 (2001).
S44. J. G. Jiang, Y. F. Shen, Chemosphere 68, 637 (2007).
S45. C. K. Kang, E. J. Choy, Y. Son, J. Y. Lee, J. K. Kim et al., Mar. Biol. 153, 1181 (2008).
S46. P. Kardol, T. M. Bezemer, A. van der Wal, W. H. van der Putten, Biol. Cons. 126, 317
(2005).
S47. M. Kariuki, R. M. Kooyman, R. G. B. Smith, G. Wardell-Johnson, J. K. Vanclay, For.
Ecol. Manage. 236, 162 (2006).
S48. M. E. Kimball, K. W. Able, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 346, 87 (2007).
S49. R. A. Kinzie, C. Chong, J. Devrel, D. Lindstrom, R. Wolff, Pac. Sci. 60, 1 (2006).
S50. R. A. Konisky, D. M. Burdick, M. Dionne, H. A. Neckles, Rest. Ecol.14, 516 (2006).
S51. D. C. Laughlin, J. D. Bakker, M. T. Stoddard, M. L. Daniels, J. D. Springer et al., For.
Ecol. Manage. 199, 137 (2004).
S52. D. C. Laughlin, M. M. Moore, J. D. Bakker, C. A. Casey, J. D. Springer et al., Rest. Ecol.
14, 548 (2006).
S53. C. S. Lee, J. S. Moon, Y. C. Cho, Water Air Soil Pollut. 179, 239 (2007).
S54. H. S. Lenihan, C. H. Peterson, J. E. Byers, J. H. Grabowski, G. W. Thayer et al., Ecol.
Appl. 11, 764 (2001).
S55. F. Lepori, D. Palm, B. Malmqvist, J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 228 (2005).
53
S56. R. R. Lewis, R. G. Gilmore, Bull. Mar. Sci. 80, 823 (2007).
S57. S. P. Loheide, S. M. Gorelick, Water Resour. Res. 43, W07414 (2007).
S58. M. Lovera, G. Cuenca, Mycorrhiza 6, 111 (1996).
S59. J. A. Ludwig, D. J. Tongway, Rest. Ecol. 4, 398 (1996).
S60. V. L. McKinley, R. Wolek, Proc. 18th N. Am. Prairie Conference: 138 (2003).
S61. M. Mench, J. Vangronsveld, C. Beckx, Ann Ruttens, Environ. Pollut. 144, 51 (2006).
S62. O. S. Moynahan, C. A. Zabinski, J. E. Gannon, Rest. Ecol. 10, 77 (2002).
S63. N. Y. B. Ndour, W. Achouak, R. Christen, T. Heulin, A.Brauman et al., Appl. Soil Ecol.
38, 51 (2008).
S64. L. Ottonetti, L. Tucci, G. Santini, Rest. Ecol. 14, 60 (2006).
S65. A. I. Pollard, T. Reed, Hydrobiologia 513, 51 (2004).
S66. J. Poyry, S. Lindgren, J. Salminen, M. Kuussaari, Ecol. Appl. 14, 1656 (2004).
S67. J. Pykala, Plant Ecol. 175, 217 (2004).
S68. I. Quintero, T. Roslin, Ecology 86, 3303 (2005).
S69. S. D. Reay, D. A. Norton, Rest. Ecol. 7, 298 (1999).
S70. D. J. Reed, M. S. Peterson, B. J. Lezina, Environ. Manage. 37, 671 (2006).
S71. G. Relini, M. Relini, G. Palandri, S. Merello,E. Beccornia, Hydrobiologia 580, 193
(2007).
S72. J. M. Rhemtulla, D. J. Mladenoff, M. K. Clayton, Landscape Ecol. 22, 57 (2007).
S73. C. T. Roman, K. B. Raposa, S. C. Adamowicz, M. J. James-Pirri, J. G. Catena, Rest.
Ecol.10, 450 (2002).
S74. P. G. Scowcroft, J. Jeffrey, For. Ecol. Manage. 114, 447-458 (1999).
S75. J. C. Tallman, G. E. Forrester, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 136, 790 (2007).
S76. J. M. Teal, S. Peterson, J. Coast. Res. SI40, 132 (2005).
S77. B. M. Teels, C. A. Rewa, J. Myers, Wild. Soc. Bull. 34, 927 (2006).
54
S78. H. van Hamburg, A. N. Andersen, W. J. Meyer, H. G. Robertson, Rest. Ecol. 12, 552
(2004).
S79. D. L. M. Vieira, A. Scariot, A. B. Sampaio, K. D. Hall, J. Trop. Ecol. 22, 353 (2006).
S80. J. M. Waddington, K. D. Warner, Ecoscience 8, 359 (2001).
S81. C. R. Webster, M. A. Jenkins, J. H. Rock, Biol. Cons. 125, 297 (2005).
S82. W. G. Whitford, A. G. De Soyza, J. W. Van Zii, J. E. Herrick, K. M. Havstad, Environ.
Monit. Assess. 51, 179 (1998).
S83. W. L. Wilson, V. J. Abernethy, K. J. Murphy, A. Adam, D. I. McCracken et al., Agric.,
Ecosyst. Environ. 94, 249 (2003).
S84. B. Yin, D. Crowley, G. Sparovek, W. J. De Melo, J. Borneman, Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 66, 4361 (2000).
S85. A. E. Zanne, C. A. Chapman, Ecol. Appl. 11, 1610 (2001).
S86. C. B. Zhang, L. N. Huang, T. Luan, J. Jin, C. Lan, Geoderma 136, 555 (2006).
S87. C. M. Swan, B. Healey, B. Healey, D. C. Richardson, Ecoscience 15, 27 (2008).
S88. P. Moreno-Casasola, M. L. Martinez, G. Castillo-Campos, Ecoscience 15, 44 (2008).
S89. R. Andersen, A. J. Francez, L. Rochefort, Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 1375 (2006).
S90. A. B. Carey, Balancing Ecosystem Values: Innovative Experiments for Sustainable
Forestry 635, 227 (2004).
S91. R. E. Frenkel, J. C. Morlan, Northw. Environ. J. 7, 119 (1991).
S92. J. Kanowski, C. P. Catterall, G.W. Wardell-Johnson, H. Proctor, T. Reis, For. Ecol.
Manage. 183, 265 (2003).
S93. K. N. Potter, H. A. Torbert, H. B. Johnson, C. R. Tischler, Soil Sci. 164, 718 (1999).
S94. Gratton, C., R. F. Denno, Rest. Ecol., 13 358 (2005).
55