1. FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY:
Trait-based Approaches for Bioengineering
Multifunctional Agroecosystems
Fabrice DeClerck (and friends)

2. OS PhylogenyXP
Upgrade:
OS® Now includes
Provisioning, Cultural,
Regulating and
PhylogenyXP Support Services
experience the best of the biosphere
Constantly
Evolving!
Version 2.8 B
Free support from more than 2 million species*
Version 2.8 B
*number of species may be greater than 100 million

3. Agrobiodiversity
Agricultural biodiversity includes all components
of biological diversity of relevance to food and
agriculture, and all components of biological
diversity that constitute the agroecosystem.
CBD definition of Agricultural Diversity

4. Loss of functional diversity under land
use intensification across multiple taxa.
Ecology Letters 12:22-33
Dan Flynn, Melanie Gogol-
Prokurat, Brenda Lin, Nicole
Molinari, Theresa Nogeire,
Bárbara Trautman
Richers, Nicholas
Simpson, Margie Mayfield and
Fabrice DeClerck

5. Tilman et al 1996

6. Diaz and Cabido (2001)

7. Does land use intensification reduce functional diversity?
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33
DeClerck NCEAS DGS

8. Landuse Intensity
2°Forest Pasture
Forest Low tree density
Live Fence
Pasture
High Tree Density
[ ]
Sanchez et al

9. How is functional diversity
lost with intensification?
71 Species Total
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33
DeClerck NCEAS DGS

10. x
x What is functional
x
x redundancy within
x
x
taxonomic groups with land
x use change?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33
Forest Fragment: 25 extinct
DeClerck NCEAS DGS

11. x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x
Forest Fragment: 25 extinct Live Fence: 41 extinct

12. x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x
Forest Fragment: 25 extinct Live Fence: 41 extinct

13. x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x
x x
x x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
Forest Fragment: 25 extinct Live Fence: 41 extinct Pasture: 64 extinct

14. Functional Diversity Decreases with landuse Intensity
Flynn et al. Ecology Letters (2009) 12:22-33
DeClerck NCEAS DGS

15. Agrobiodiversity and Human Nutrition
Fabrice DeClerck1,2, Jessica Fanzo2,3,
Cheryl Palm2 and Roseline Remans2
1CATIE and 2The Earth Institute at Columbia University, 3 Bioversity

16. Econutrition: the interrelationships among
nutrition, human health, agriculture and food
production, environmental health, and
economic production
Deckelbaum, Palm, Mutuo and F. DeClerck

17. Hypotheses
• Biodiversity drives ecosystem functioning
• Human health is an ecosystem function
• Agrobiodiversity should impact human health
• The study of agrobiodiversity and human
health can lead to important considerations for
both sustainable development, and theoretical
ecology.
F. DeClerck

18. Sauri Agrobiodiversity
• Over 146 plant species found
• 39 Edible Species
• Mean of 14 edible species per farm
• Ranging from 5 - 22 edible plant species
• Mean 1.5 cattle, half a sheep, a quarter
goat and 7 chickens.
F. DeClerck

19. Seven Traits
1) Protein
2) Energy
3) Vitamin A
4) Vitamin C
5) Iron
6) Zinc
7) Folates
F. DeClerck

20. High Protein
High Energy
High Vitamin A
F. DeClerck

21. Field species richness, and
functional diversity are
related: r2 0.49, p<0.001
FD
Species Richness
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)

22. Farm 201201
Species Richness = 18
FD = 0.99
FD
Farm 103801
Species Richness = 19
FD = 0.66
Species Richness
Farm 600102
Species Richness = 10
FD = 0.76
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)

23. F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
Farm 103801 Farm 201201 Farm 600102
Species Richness = 19 Species Richness = 18 Species Richness = 10
FD = 0.66 FD = 0.99 FD = 0.76

24. High functional agrobiodiversity decreases probability of anemia
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
Species richness and anemia, R2 =0.05
Functional diversity and anemia R2= 0.13

25. Table 1. Nutrients and nutrient groups taken into account for calculation of FD metrics. From
the 51 required nutrients for human diets, 17 nutrients that are key for human diets and for
which reliable plant composition data were available in the literature were selected. Because
plants are not a proven source for Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D, these were not included.
Macronutrients Minerals Vitamins
Protein Calcium (Ca) Vitamin A
Carbohydrates Iron (Fe) Vitamin C
Dietary fibre Potassium (K) Thiamin
Fat Magnesium (Mg) Riboflavin
Manganese (Mn) Folate
Zinc (Zn) Niacin
Sulfur (S)
Remans, Flynn, DeClerck et al. PloS One (2010)

26. Zinc
F. DeClerck
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)

27. Zinc
F. DeClerck
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)

28. Zinc
F. DeClerck
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)

29. Zinc
F. DeClerck
F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)

30. F. DeClerck, Remans, Fanzo and Palm (2010)
0.82
Contribution of BD to Nutrition
0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
0.66
0 10 20 30 40
Number of Nutritional Functions

31. Figure 2. Nutritional Functional Diversity and Species richness for 170
farms in Sauri (☐), Mwandama (Δ) and Ruhiira ()
!
Remans, Flynn, DeClerck et al. PloS One (2010)

32. Figure 3. Observed versus expected Nutritional Functional Diversity for 170
farms in Sauri (☐), Mwandama (Δ) and Ruhiira (). Farms that have observed
FD values that significantly differ from expected FD values are in bold.
!
!
Remans, Flynn, DeClerck et al. PloS One (2010)

33. Land-use intensification reduces functional redundancy and response
diversity in plant communities. Ecology Letters 13:76-86
Etienne Laliberté, Jessie Wells, Fabrice DeClerck, Dan Metcalfe, Isabelle Aubin, Carla
Catterall, Cibele Queiroz, Stephen Bonser, Yi Ding, Sean McNamara, Jen Fraterrigo, John
Morgan,
Peter Vesk, Margie Mayfield.

34. Response diversity
“Of increasing concern is the loss of species that
have similar ecosystem effects but differ in
their environmental responses. This latter role
of diversity (…) may be one of the most important
mechanisms by which we sustain the long-term
functioning of ecosystems and the services
they provide to society.”
Chapin et al. 1997 Science

35. Ecological redundancy
• Redundancy = number of species within a functional group
• High redundancy = high resilience to environmental change
• Why? compensatory responses
Group 6: higher
4 redundancy
1 5 & resilience
3
2 6
Functional Group 6: lower
groups 1 to 6 redundancy
& resilience

36. Measuring response diversity
• Volume of the minimum
Convex hull volume
Response trait 2
convex hull formed by species
2.0
within a functional group, in
response trait space
1.5
• From 2 to n response traits
1.0
• Represents the range of
0.5
“response strategies” found
within a functional group
0.0
• Larger volume = higher 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
resilience
Response trait 1

37. Measuring response diversity
Convex hull volume
Response trait 2
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Response trait 1 Response trait 1

38. Functional trait Effect Response
Specific leaf area (SLA) X
Wood density X
Growth form X
Height X
Leaf phenology X X
Nutrient uptake strategy X X
Photosynthetic pathway X X
Raunkiaer life form X
Clonality X
Dispersal mode X
Leaf size X
Maximum propagule longevity X
Physical defense X
Pollination syndrome X
Resprouting ability X
Seed mass X
Lifespan X

39. Study Sites, Species Richness (landscapes)
Quebec
Portugual 243 (1)
110 (1)
China USA, NC
453 (2) 38(1)
Laos
53(1)
Nicaragua
Australian RF 240(2)
1028 (4) Costa Rica
728(3)
Australian WL New Zealand
52(1) 54(1)
± 3000 species; 17 landscapes; 17 functional traits

40. a) Species in effect trait space

41. a) Species in effect trait space
4
1 5
3
2 6
b) Functional effect groups

42. c) Species in each land use
a) Species in effect trait space
4 Natural
Semi-natural
1 5
Low-intensity
3
agricultural
2 6
b) Functional effect groups
High-intensity
agricultural

43. c) Species in each land use
a) Species in effect trait space d) Functional dispersion
(response diversity) for
each effect group in each
Natural
land use
e) Spearmanρbetween land
Semi-natural
use intensity and response
diversity
ρ = -0.9
Response diversity
4
1 5
Low-intensity
3
agricultural
2 6
Land use intensity
b) Functional effect groups
High-intensity
agricultural
Effect size for
meta-analysis

44. Redundancy decreases with land use intensification
Nicaragua (Matiguas)
Australia sub-tropics 1
Nicaragua (Rivas)
Australia WT (Atherton)
China (Hainan lowland)
USA (North Carolina)
New Zealand
Australia sub-tropics 2
Costa Rica (La Palma)
China (Hainan montane)
Australia WL (NSW)
Portugal
Costa Rica (Las Cruces)
Laos
Quebec
Australia WT (Tully)
Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez)
Summary
r = -0.22
p = 0.0003
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Correlation coefficient r

45. Response diversity decreases as well, but less so
Nicaragua (Matiguas)
Australia sub-tropics 1
Nicaragua (Rivas)
Australia WT (Atherton)
China (Hainan lowland)
USA (North Carolina)
New Zealand
Australia sub-tropics 2
Costa Rica (La Palma)
China (Hainan montane)
Australia WL (NSW)
Portugal
Costa Rica (Las Cruces)
Laos
Quebec
Australia WT (Tully)
Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez)
Summary
r = -0.091
p = 0.048 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
Correlation coefficientr

46. Redundancy Response diversity
Nicaragua (Matiguas) Nicaragua (Matiguas)
Australia sub-tropics 1 Australia sub-tropics 1
Nicaragua (Rivas) Nicaragua (Rivas)
Australia WT (Atherton) Australia WT (Atherton)
China (Hainan lowland) China (Hainan lowland)
USA (North Carolina) USA (North Carolina)
New Zealand New Zealand
Australia sub-tropics 2 Australia sub-tropics 2
Costa Rica (La Palma) Costa Rica (La Palma)
China (Hainan montane) China (Hainan montane)
Australia WL (NSW) Australia WL (NSW)
Portugal Portugal
Costa Rica (Las Cruces) Costa Rica (Las Cruces)
Laos Laos
Quebec Quebec
Australia WT (Tully) Australia WT (Tully)
Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez) Costa Rica (Puerto Jimenez)
Summary Summary
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
Correlation coefficientr Correlation coefficientr

47. Towards Multifunctional Landscapes
• Ecological Aspects
– What are the driving mechanisms behind ES
• Species richness, composition, functional diversity
arrangement.
• Social and Economic Drivers
– How do communities organize to impact change
– Integration of multiple stakeholders in ecoagricultural
landscapes.
• Does the ES paradigm provide conservation and
development goals?

48. Thanks!
THANKS!!!