Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Kailen A. Mooney

Publications and source records attributed to Kailen A. Mooney.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A common garden super-experiment: An impossible dream to inspire possible synthesis

Global change threatens plant diversity and disrupts its interrelationship with ecosystem structure and function. This disruption in turn undermines confidence in the knowledge ecologists produce, and whether it will translate into multidisciplinary research settings or guide the effective management of natural lands. To address this challenge, ecology needs to consider the interactions between different levels of biological hierarchy, especially how they feedback on, and are mediated by, plant diversity. Doing so will require conducting empirical work and developing theory that simultaneously considers multiple disciplinary perspectives and units of study. Here we advocate the use of common gardens to integrate ecology, evolutionary biology, and ecosystem science through an explicit focus on simultaneous measurement of response variables at multiple levels of biological organization. This approach will provide opportunities to evaluate assumptions important to prediction, such as space-for-time substitution, and tackle the integration of physicochemical and eco-evolutionary foundations to understanding plants and ecosystems. Synthesis: We summarize the large body of research on Sonoran Desert winter annuals to demonstrate how experimental designs that employ common gardens to integrate processes across scales hold special promise. This includes refining trait-based theories of plant strategies, providing insight into ecosystem responses to global change, and collaborating effectively with other scientific disciplines.

Journal of Ecology

Generalizing indirect defense and resistance of plants

Indirect defence, the adaptive top‐down control of herbivores by plant traits that enhance predation, is a central component of plant–herbivore interactions. However, the scope of interactions that comprise indirect defence and associated ecological and evolutionary processes has not been clearly defined. We argue that the range of plant traits that mediate indirect defence is much greater than previously thought, and we further organise major concepts surrounding their ecological functioning. Despite the wide range of plant traits and interacting organisms involved, indirect defences show commonalities when grouped. These categories are based on whether indirect defences boost natural enemy abundance via food or shelter resources, or, alternatively, increase natural enemy foraging efficiency via information or alteration of habitat complexity. The benefits of indirect defences to natural enemies should be further explored to establish the conditions in which indirect defence generates a plant–natural enemy mutualism. By considering the broader scope of plant–herbivore–natural enemy interactions that comprise indirect defence, we can better understand plant‐based food webs, as well as the evolutionary processes that have shaped them.

Ecology Letters