Heredity (2005) 95, 183
& 2005 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0018-067X/05 $30.00
NEWS AND COMMENTARY
...............................................................
Conservation Biology
Ecosystem recovery enhanced by
genotypic diversity
R Frankham
...........................................................
Heredity (2005) 95, 183. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800706; published online 27 July 2005
he biodiversity of the planet is
T rapidly being depleted, largely as
a direct and indirect consequence
of human activities (the ‘sixth extinc-
tion’: Leakey and Lewin, 1995). IUCN,
the World conservation Union, recog-
nizes the need to conserve biodiversity
at three levels: genetic, species and
ecosystem diversity (McNeely et al,
1990). Genetics is known to be involved
in the first and second of these, but
has not previously been recognized as
important in ecosystem conservation
(Frankham et al, 2002). A recent paper
in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA by Reusch
et al (2005) provides evidence that
genotypic diversity enhances ecosystem
recovery following an unprecedented
heat wave.
Species diversity generally enhances
ecosystem function (reviewed by Schla-
pfer and Schmid, 1999; Loreau et al,
2001). Reusch’s group hypothesized
that genotypic diversity would act in a
similar manner to species diversity to
enhance ecosystem function and resili-
ence, especially in ecosystems with low
species diversity.
To test this hypothesis, in 2003 they
set up replicated seagrass (Zostera mar-
ina) plots in shallow seas in the south-
west Baltic Sea with one, three or six
clonal genotypes. An unprecedented
heat wave occurred during the experi-
ment. Recovery following the heat wave
was much better in the plots with
www.nature.com/hdy
multiple genotypes. The number of
shoots was 34% higher in the six-
genotype plots than the monocultures,
and the biomass was 26% greater. In
addition, there were benefits in terms of
higher abundance (but not diversity) for
several eipfaunal groups associated
with seagrass. Benefits were found for
juvenile bivalves and grazers (snails
and isopods), but no benefits accrued
for detritivorous crustaceans.
The mechanism generating the en-
hanced ecosystem function for the sea-
grass was genotypic complementarity,
rather than selection. There were large
interactions in performance of clones
when measured singly versus in mix-
tures. For example, the clone that
performed best singly was ranked 5
out of 6 in six clone mixtures and the
worst clone singly was ranked third in
six clone mixtures.
This work implicates genotypic di-
versity as important for ecosystem
function, in addition to its previously
known roles in species survival. Clearly,
it is important to establish how wide-
spread such effects are across geo-
graphic regions and different ecosys-
tems. Hughes and Stachowicz (2004)
reported that genotypic diversity en-
hanced community resistance of the
same species of seagrass to disturbance
by grazing geese in the USA. The effect
is not restricted to seagrass. Madritch
and Hunter (2003) demonstrated that
intraspecific diversity in turkey oak
(Quercus laevis) leaves was positively
related to soil respiration rate due to
microorganisms at high soil nitrogen
levels. It is unclear whether the effect
described by Reusch et al (2005) is
restricted to low diversity ecosystems
like seagrass, but it is unlikely, given the
generally beneficial effects of species
diversity to ecosystem function.
R Frankham is at the Key Centre for Biodiversity
and Bioresources, Department of Biological
Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109,
Australia, and The Australian Museum, 6 College
Street, Sydney, NSW 2090, Australia.
E-mail: rfrankha@els.mq.edu.au
Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002).
Introduction to Conservation Genetics. Cam-
bridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ (2004). Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 101: 8998–9002.
Leakey R, Lewin R (1995). The Sixth Extinction:
Biodiversity and its Survival. Phoenix: London.
Loreau M et al (2001). Science 294: 804–808.
Madritch MD, Hunter MD (2003). Oecologia 136:
124–128.
McNeely JA, Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeier
RA, Werner TB (1990). Conserving the World’s
Biological Diversity. IUCN, World Resources
Institute, Conservation International, WWF-
US and the World Bank: Washington, DC.
Reusch TBH, Ehlers A, Hämmerli A, Worm B
(2005). Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102: 2826–2831.
Schlapfer F, Schmid B (1999). Ecol Appl 9: 893–912.
Further Reading
Chapin III FS et al (2000). Consequences of
changing biodiversity. Nature 405: 234.
Daily GC (1999). Developing a scientific basis for
managing Earth’s life support systems. Conserv
Ecol 3: 14 [online] URL http://www.consecol.
orf/vol13/iss12/art14.
Primack RB (2002). Essentials of Conservation
Biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer: Sunderland, MA.
Rodrigues ASL et al (2004). Effectiveness of the
global protected area network in representing
species diversity. Nature 428: 640.
Umina PA et al (2005). A rapid shift in a classic
clinal pattern in Drosophila reflecting climate
change. Science 308: 691.